1920-06-30

REPORTS AND PAPERS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Ordinances of the Yukon Territory; return in reference to number of assistant, private and joint secretaries; amount paid to the Montreal Gazette, the Gazette Printing Company, the Montreal Star and the Toronto Globe during 1919-20; the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island; men engaged by the Civil Service Commission; the Military Hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and societies which have filed copies of policies complying with the provisions of the Insurance Act.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What was the amount paid to L. G. A. Cressfi, K.C., of Montreal; as registrar under the National Service regulations?
2.	What was the total amount claimed bysaid L. G. A. Cressfe, K.C., for his services as such registrar?
3.	What reductions were made in his memo of account, as originally filed?
4.	How many claims were made by sub-registrars employed by said L. G. A. Cressd, K.C., for unpaid salaries and allowances?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	The Government has no record or knowledge of Mr. L. G. A. Cresse, K.C., of Montreal, being paid, or making claim, for any amount under National Service regulations.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON NATURAL RESOURCES, TRADE AND LEGISLATION.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1.	What action, if any, has the Government taken towards accepting the recommendations set forth in the final report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty in March, 1917, showing that it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom should remain longer without some measure of Government supervision?
2.	Does the Government intend to give effect to this legislation?
3.	What action, if any, has the Government taken to assist the Imperial Government in bringing about government control of ocean ear-

riers doing business (or from time to time doing business) between ports in the United Kingdom and ports in the Dominion of Canada?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: The Government has endeavoured to give consideration to this matter during recent weeks, but there is no announcement to be made at the moment.


BRANCH RAILWAY FROM VICTORIAVILLE TO ARTHABASCA.
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: Is it the intention of the Government to build a branch line on the Grand Trunk, from Vic-toriaville to Arthabasca, a distance of three miles, so that the railway may reach the chief town of the district of Arthabasca?


Hon. Mr. REID (Minister of Railways):: The answer to the question is "no."


BOARD OF COMMERCE-JUDGE ROBSON'S CORRESPONDENCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in my absence last evening, some hon. gentleman, I think it was the hon. member for George-Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), made the assertion that my observations in regard to Judge Robson were not borne out by the correspondence laid on the Table of the House. He further stated that no copy of such letters or telegrams as had been referred to had been produced, and he requested that any such communications should be brought down if they exist. In order that the matter may be set at rest now I read the following:
Ed-monton, Alberta, March 6. 192-0. The Right Honourable Sir George E. Foster, Ottawa, Ont.
I pro-test against the divulgence in any manner of personal letters sent to'me and of my confidential conversations with Cabinet Ministers or others. This applies to communications which may have escaped by unguarded repetition or by miscarriage of letters. Objection extends to letters written by others to you endeavouring to make public confidential and personal communications of above nature.
H. A Robson.
On -tibe 7th March theTe was received the following telegram:
Winnipeg, Man., March 7, 1920. Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster,
Acting Premier of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
I most respectfully but most firmly protest against the publication to you or by you of ray private letters addressed to Judge Robson personally, which letters miscarried into unauthorized hands and were illegally copied. These letters and all copies thereof -are my personal property and I have the right to restrain and

forbid publication thereof. These letters were not invited and were not expected by Judge Hobson and publication will place him in a false light and be misleading to all who read them.
(Sgd) J. B. Hogg.
These telegrams constitute the protest that I alluded 'to in speaking last evening and I desire to say that copies of these communications have been on the Table of the House for several idays. They have also appeared in the press. Therefore the hon. gentlemen, in stating that such documents (were not on the Table of the House was entirely misinformed and quite inaccurate.


PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY MR.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise 'to a question of privilege to correct (what I iam forced to regard as a wilfully malicious misrepresentation by this morning's Ottawa Journal land Montreal Gazette of my remarks in this House yesterday. These papers accused me of referring to the press gallery reporters as being "half-baked and half-paid." It is true that I referred to these gentlemen as immature and to the condition of their grey matter as half-baked, 'but I protest most strongly against toeing accused of saying that they were half-paid. I made no reference whatever to their pay (but whatever the amount may he it would, in my judgment, be excessive.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE- .CORRESPONDENCE WITH IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders o!f the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: The hon. the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne) was to bring down 'the icommunications that have passed between this Government and the Imperial Government with regard to *the Naval Service. When may we expect that correspondence to toe brought down?
Rt. Hon. iSir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime ^Minister): I think it wais I who spoke about it. I said that all communications would be 'brought down excepting such as were of a confidential nature. I have examined the correspondence and I find that it is marked secret. There does not seem to toe any reason why it -should not be brought down 'but -according to the custom in these
-matters the consent of ithe Home Government will have to Ibe asked -before it can he done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would that apply to cables sent toy this Government to the Home Government?


Robert Laird Borden: A cable in reply to a secret cable is also marked secret. Correspondence 6ent by this Government in [DOT]reply -to a secret cable is always regarded -as toeing secret and the correspondence is not brought down ifo-r that reason. Even -a communication not marked "secret" tout sent in reply to one marked "secret" would not be brought down for the same reason.
PRINTING OOMiMITTEE REPORT.
Mr. LEM-I-EUX:	I would like to
ascertain from the chairman of the Printing Committee (Mr. 'Currie) what he intends to do with the second report of the committee which awaits the* concurrence of the House. I have a suggestion to make when the motion is made for the adoption of the report?
Mr. J. A. CURRIE-: I -may say for the information of the hon. member that the report has been already tabled, -but one clause in it, I think either clause 5 or clause 6, has been objected to by one of the departments. With the unanimous consent of the House I intend later to move the adoption of the report after I get a corrected copy of it from the 'Clerk of the Committee.
-Mr. LEMIEUX: I want to make a suggestion to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as regards the composition of the Editorial Committee to whom has been entrusted the decision as to what Government publications shall be printed. That committee consists of Mr. Frederick Cook, Assistant King's Printer, Mr. F- C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, and another gentleman. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he does not think that on that important committee concerning the printing of parliamentary documents there should be some person to represent the French speaking minority in this country.


Robert Laird Borden: I am entirely in sympathy with what my hon. friend has suggested in that regard, and I shall bring the matter to the attention of Sir George Foster.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I thank the right hon.
gentleman; that is entirely satisfactory.

CUSTOMS	ACT-PROPOSED	EXPORT


REGULATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I Beg leave to submit the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider Bill No. 182 to amend the Customs Act. The report reads as follows:	i
Tour committee beg leave to present the following as their report:-[DOT]
Your committee having fully considered the Bill have formed the opinion that it is not expedient that the measure be further proceeded with at the present time.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden the report was adopted.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. S. BE.LAND (Beauce): I would like to call attention to the report submitted by the Pensions Committee. Some of the recommendations in that report have been met by the introduction and passage of special Bills, as in the case of pensions and of insurance to soldiers and their dependents. But under the heading of "general" a number of other recommendations were made. Are these suggestions going to be met by the Government? So far as I am aware no legislation has been introduced to meet them. Therefore I would like to know whether provision will be made through regulations by the department concerned?
Robert Laird Borden: In reply to the very proper inquiry of my hon. friend I would point out to him that our first duty was to enact the legislation recommended by the committee. Up to the present time our efforts have been directed to that. My hon. friend will understand that in the endeavour to keep abreast of our work in Parliament there has not been very much opportunity up to the present time-in fact there has been no opportunity-to study the general recommendations to which he alludes and which, I understand, do not demand legislation. I think all the legislation that is necessary has been presented to and has been approved by Parliament. However, it will he the duty of the Government, immediately after prorogation, to consider all of the recommendations of the committee which the hon. member has brought to our attention; to decide what

may properly be done.to carry them out, and the best methods to employ for that purpose.


CLASSIFICATION OF OFFICIALS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. BBLAND:: I would like to inquire whether the classification of the employees of the House will be tabled so that it may be dealt with by the House before prorogation?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I may inform the hon.
member that at eight o'clock last evening there was submitted to me by the secretary of the Civil Service 'Commission what purports to be a tentative list providing for the classification of the officials of the House of Commons, accompanied by a letter in which apparently he asks for my approval, or something to that effect. I wish to inform the House that the stand I take is, that under the law this classification is a matter for the Civil Service Commission and I do not think it would be either competent or proper for me to assume the responsibility for a duty which the law imposes upon them. For that reason, after consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel, I am sending a letter to the Civil Service Commission advising them to that effect, and I hope that in the course of the day they may see their way clear to have the classification ready for submission to the House. The facts are precisely as I have stated.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers):: Why not let the House deal with its own employees if the commission cannot find a way of classifying them?


PRINTING COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CURRIE:: Before the Orders of the
Day are proceeded with I would ask that the House be allowed to return to motions in order that I may move concurrence in the second report of the joint committee on the printing of Parliament. I may say that no obstacle now remains to the adoption of the report and the course suggested "will only occupy a short space of time.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden the House returned to the consideration of motions.


John Allister Currie: I move, seconded by Mr. Sexsmith, that the second report of the Joint Committee on the printing of Par-

liament be concurred in with the exception of clause 5 in the report, which has been struck out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I heartily concur in the report with the rider attached that the Prime Minister and the Government will deem it necessary to add one or two French names to the membership of the Editorial Committee. That committee deals with the printing of blue books, and other reports, and it is fitting and proper that the French speaking minority in this country should be represented on it. A moment ago I stated that I was satisfied with the declaration of the Prime Minister in this respect. Under these circumstances I offer no opposition to the motion for the concurrence in the report.


John Allister Currie: In answer to the hon.
member I may say that the Printing Committee has nothing to do with the appointment of persons to the Editorial Committee; that matter is entirely in the hands of the Government. When Mr. Tache was King's Printer he was an ex-officio member of the committee, and I suppose that is the reason why a member representing the minority was not formerly appointed to it. I suppose now that Mr. Tache has ceased to be King's Printer the Government will, as the Prime Minister has said, take the matter into consideration; but the Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament has nothing whatever to do with that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand from the right hon. gentleman that the Government will appoint a member for the minority.


John Allister Currie: The Prime Minister speaks for the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]
SPECIAL WAR REiVENUE ACT, 1915- SENATE AMENDMENT.'
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 183 to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made to the Special War Revenue Act by the Senate are. I think, entirely non-contentious and do not change the effect of the Act as it left this House.
In line 28 on page 4 the words "affixed or" are added to the section dealing with the stamps. The amendment is entirely unobjectionable.
Then hon. members will find a further amendment at page 11, line 10, where the words "and five" are stricken out. The amendment is correct.
On page 13, line 31, a printing error was made by extending the words "by or for the Senate or House of Commons." That error has been corrected. There are no other amendments.
I beg to move concurrence in the amendments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) will not find that the matter which I am going to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Burrell) is derogatory to the present legislation because I think it is germane to it. The French Treaty expired on the 19th of June. I find that many people have imported goods from France which arrived at Montreal, or Quebec, or Halifax before the 19th. If those goods are delivered later than the 19th, say, in Ottawa or Winnipeg, are they subject to the general tariff, or do they still remain subject to the most favoured nation clause of the French Treaty? I may mention a conciete case. A gentleman ordered some goods in France and they arrived in Montreal on the 17th. The treaty expired on the 19th. The goods were sent to: Ottawa, and probably they can not be delivered for two weeks. Is it fair that those goods should be subject to the general tariff?


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that I hardly think this discussion is relevant, but I have no objection to giving my hon. friend an answer. We are negotiating upon the subject, and we have expressed a certain willingness, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking of a concrete case. The ship arrived in Montreal on the 17th; the treaty expired on the 19th; the goods were shipped to Ottawa, but it takes one or .two weeks before they can be delivered. Do the Customs authorities claim duty under the general tariff, or under the special tariff?


Mr. BURRELL:: Speaking offhand, my impression of the law is that if the goods arrive at the port by the 19th they come under the old tariff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Although they are delivered later on?


Martin Burrell: Speaking offhand, I
would say so; but I would not like to make
450G

a positive statement.. I will look into the matter.
iMr. M!c)MASTER: I would like to inquire from the Minister oif Finance whether we are now discussing an amendment made by the Senate differentiating between custom-made suits and tailor-made suits?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was an amendment of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 217 to amend the Railway Act.
Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: 

SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Labour- salaries, $124,537.50 ; contingencies, $35,000.
['I shall be glad to bear in mind what my hon. friend says. Section agreed to.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain the increase in the item of salaries?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The increases are due, of course, to the increased salaries called for by the classification. There are some new appointments; Dr. Gill, to be in charge of technical education work; Mr. Gerald Brown, reappointed as Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour; Major Howard, Superintendent of Employment Offices, Ottawa, and R. A. Rigg, Superintendent of Employment Offices, Winnipeg.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government appointed any of its officials in the Labour

Department to represent Canada in the Labour Bureau which was organized as a result of the Peace Conference? I know that Mr. Acland went to the conference in London.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Labour is ex officio a member of the Labour body. He sent Mr. Acland to the conference to which my hon. friend refers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it understood that
the Government is permanently represented in that Labour Bureau?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice with pleasure that the Canadian Government and the Labour Department took quite an interest in the development of that Labour Bureau. Washington and Paris also took an interest in the matter, but through the action of the Prime Minister '(Sir Robert Borden) as the representative of Canada at the Peace Conference, Canada took a lead in the creation of this international labour organization. Will the Labour Department send only an occasional representative, or will it be permanently represented in that organization?


Arthur Meighen: The Labour Department as such is not represented, but thej Dominion is represented in the same sense that other countries are, for a period of three years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom?


Arthur Meighen: There are twelve representatives, eight by the eight chief commercial countries and four by election. Canada is represented at the conference by the Minister of Labour.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who may depute one of its representatives to attend?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that at the Seamen's conference held recently at Genoa, the (Government was represented first by Sir George Perley and subsequently by Hon. Mr. Roy, Canada's representative in Paris.


Arthur Meighen: That is right, and by Mr. Desbarats also.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $35,0(00.
['That is right, and by Mr. Desbarats also.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I may be permitted to take advantage of this opportunity to speak of a matter that relates to industrial disputes. I refer to
the question of pensions due the Grand Trunk Railway employees. When we discussed this matter before, my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy), referring to the understanding that had been reached between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its employees, asked whether the promise of the Grand Trunk that the men should be reinstated in their former positions within three months was made in writing. I told my hon. friend that I thought it was, but I had not the documents before me to make a definite statement in the matter, and I pointed out that he would see by a reference to a letter I had written Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time whether or not the undertaking had been given in writing. I have referred to that letter, which appears on Hansard, and I find that the undertaking was given in writing. I have also looked up some old files, and I now have before me the original memorandum. As this matter is likely to come before the Board of Arbitration 1 think it would be in the interests of the* men to have it of record, and it is per-' haps just as well that it should be of record in the proceedings of the House. The dispute between the -Grand Trunk Railway and. its employees in the train and yard service was settled by the agreement dated Montreal, July 31, 1910. The House will, I am sure, permit me to put on record this settlement which is the one that has already been read in the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
document:
Re Dispute Between Grand Trunk Railway Company and its Employees in Train and Yard Service.
Montreal, July 31, 1910.
By way of settlement of the existing difficulties :
1.	The company will put 'back as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
2.	The company will put into effect from May 1, 19tL0, the rates named in schedule of rates, dated July *1*8, 1910, those rates to be embodied in the present schedules now in effect on this line, it being understood that those rates shall in no instance effect a reduction in any existing- rate.
3.	The company will on January 1, 191)2, make effective in train and yard service on the Grand Trunk railway the rates of pay and the rules contained in the schedule or agreement on that date in effect on the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway east of Fort William.
The three above propositions shall apply also to the Central Vermont Railway Company, the said railroad to be substituted for the Grand


Mr. MORPHY:: That was not in writing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am very much pleased to have the data just read by the hon. gentleman put upon the records of the House. My surprise is that they were not put upon the records of the House long ago. The hon. gentleman says that he has the original letters signed by Mr. Wainwright and other officials of the Grand Trunk railway. I do not know how they came into his possession except it was in his capacity as a minister of the Crown or deputy minister, or in some official way. Had these letters been then placed upon the records of Parliament and of the country things might have been much plainer than they were left at the time. Now that they are on Hansard, I think, with all due deference to the leader of the Opposition and to what he may say about the matter, documents belonging to the country should be in the archives of the country and upon what, I suppose, would be properly termed the official files of this House. Why has the hon. gentleman carried these original documents during all these years since 1910 in his own pocket or desk without placing them upon the records of the House? These documents are valuable as regards the rights of the men, and when the arbitration board is seized with this work, these official documents would naturally be sought for upon the files of the department in question and produced before the Arbitration Board as official documents from those files. I am, however, very thankful that the information has been given bv the hon. gentleman,
because I have always had a doubt, and had these documents been produced they would have been of great benefit to the men at the time. A stronger fight could have been made on behalf of the men with the Grand Trunk Board of Management, but for lack of production of these documents, these men have suffered all these years. Nevertheless, I am glad that even at this late date they have at last been produced, and, if I may ask, that they will be officially put upon the departmental files and these files will be produced before the arbitration to show unmistakably the concession to the men under the actual signatures of those capable at the time of binding the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in that way making an absolutely overwhelming case before the Board of Arbitration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I explain to my hon. friend in answer to what I think seems a very reasonable point, why those documents were not made public? The understanding was that this phase of the settlement was to be regarded as confidential. That was the understanding between the company and the men.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are the letters marked "Confidential"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. Let me explain to my hon. friend. The original agreement that was drawn between the company and the men contained the words "as soon as possible." Sir Frederick Borden and myself were to vouch for the fact that the words "as soon as possible " meant that the men were to be returned to their former positions within three months. We undertook as ministers of the Crown to make the statement publicly, if any dispute ever arose that that was the understanding, and it was to protect ourselves in making this statement that this memorandum was drafted. The memorandum to that extent was a protection to Sir Frederick Borden and myself against any imputation that we had no authority to make that statement. That was all understood and agreed to at the time. Both the men and the company regarded it as quite sufficient that we as ministers of the Crown should state publicly from our places in Parliament that that was the intent and meaning of those words. Had the Grand Trunk carried out their agreement in any decent way, none of this correspondence would have been brought down. It was because they absolutely disregarded many of their obligations in the matter that this whole business has

had to be threshed out again at this time. I shall be only too glad to hand these letters personally to the Minister of Labour or to any one else the .minister may suggest. The reason they were on my personal file was that I regarded them as a matter of personal protection, in the event of my word being questioned at any time. It has been questioned by my hon. friend from Perth, and so I have brought down the documents, which I hope will miake the situation perfectly clear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I quite appreciate the
idea underlying the action of my hon. friend, but I hope he will not fail to appreciate the view I take on behalf of the men. Sir Frederick Borden is dead, and had my hon. friend also been dead, and these documents undisclosed for that reason, these men who are seeking rights long deferred' would have been deprived absolutely of the most important documentary evidence they could hiave to clinch and establish their claim. My hon. friend says that he kept these documents in his personal file for his own protection. I would ask Mm what is his protection, as compared with the failure to do the right thing for the men at the right time? The hon. gentleman will surely agree, with me that there was only one place for official documents of that kind dealing with a matter which had aroused antagonism iand counter-claims as between the company and the men, and that was upon a departmental file which need not necessarily have been too official, but which would, nevertheless, have kept the records complete in an official sense within the department itself, which never dies. The documents would hiave been there forever. I appreciate the hon. gentleman's view as to the confidential nature of the letters, but I would also call his attention to the fact that they are not marked "Confidential", iand to my mind it is a very dangerous precedent to establish that letters not marked' "Confidential" should be treated as confidential and be held for years under cover, away from the light, and where they never would see the light in case of death. The men whose interests are now sought to be safeguarded can be helped more by these documents than anything else in the world, and I . am awfully glad that they have at last been brought down, and that the men will have the advantage of them before ihe Board of Arbitration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say
in the first place that this is a memorandum, not a letter.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is all the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not
affect the position of the men one bit. The position of the men has always been stated as it is stated in that memorandum. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have never denied that that was the agreement. They have simply refused to put it. into force. What we on this side have asked in Parliament is that Parliament should say that the Grand Trunk must put it into force and not take the position that, although it is already in writing, they can do as they please and disregard the purpose of it. I repeat, the interests of the men have not suffered one bit by this memorandum rot being made public. It does not add in any particular to what has been all along stated as the terms and understanding on which the settlement was made.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I dispute that.
Mr. MACKENZIE, KING: I am quite positive of it. The point- is this: The understanding as to the men being returned within three months to their former positions has never been in dispute from the time that agreement was drawn to the present. That was the basis of the settlement. The men understood it to be such, and both Sir Frederick Borden and myself stated in Parliament that it was such. There is no doubt about that- whatsoever. My hon. friend from North Perth tried to make the point that because there was nothing in writing our word could not be accepted. I think that- was a wholly unfair attitude.
*Mr. M'ORPHY: I did not say anything of the kind.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: KING: If my hon. friend did not, I will withdraw the statement, but that was the implication. I maintain that the word oif a minister of the Crown or of a member of the Privy Council given in Parliament is just as sacred and binding as any memorandum that may have been made at the time to put beyond question of dispute what was understood by the parties. That is the position I have taken all along. Instead of the interests of the men having suffered, I think my hon. friend will agree that they were doubly safeguarded in every particular.


John Allister Currie: : T note that this memorandum that the hon. gentleman has produced

is dated August 1, 1920. That must be an error.
Mr. MiA'OKElNZIE. KING: lit is a typographical erroir. It should be 1910.


John Allister Currie: I had the honour of bringing this question before the House at the beginning of the session. I might say that I put a motion on the Order Paper so that I could bring this matter before the House, and between the time I put the motion on the Order Paper and moved it in the House constant pressure was brought to bear on me through certain members of labour organizations to prevent the discussion coming up in the Houee. il do not see why these men should threaten me if I want to bring the matter up in the House. I am very glad I did so, in order that the men may have justice dome to them.
I was present in the House when the discussion on the strike took place. The difficulty then was simply this: In the memorandum that was made between the Grand Trunk and the strikers the words were used that the men would be "put back" in their positions. Now the construction placed upon that by the Grand Trunk and their officials was that the men would be put back in exactly their same seniority to each other, but having ceased their employment with the company they had forfeited all their rights to pension. Their construction was that the men should be put back as they were before, but that they had forfeited their rights to pension as they had broken their agreement. Now when that discussion was under way In the House I distinctly recollect the hon. gentleman stating that the facts were just as they are set out in these secret letters that are now made public for the first time. He -absolutely made that statement. I have no doubt in the world that he had that letter at the time, and I think in all fairness to the men he should have produced it then, because the effect of not producing it has been very disastrous to the men ever since. They have been disheartened and many of them have suffered considerable financial loss through that fact. The -situation was that the vice-president of the Grand Trunk and the minister understood the phrase "put back" to mean that the. men would within three months from that date be replaced in their former positions. I recollect my colleague from -Simcoe bringing this question before the House at that date -and insisting that the Government should refuse to give aid to the Grand Trunk iand the Grand Trunk Pacific until such time
as they did justice to the men. It was well within the rights of the ministry of the day and they could very well have brought the Grand Trunk Railway Company up with a round turn because they were knocking at the doors of Parliament every day for further subsidies. On . the slightest hint as to the holding up of the subsidies the -Grand Trunk would have reinstated1 the -men. Furthermore, this House was a party to these men being dispossessed of their right. We granted a private Bill to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the -company, by virtue of a clause in that private Bill, was enabled to put these men out of court. If the minister had wanted to do justice to the men at that time it would have been very easy to have introduced a clause in the Railway Act, or to have made an amendment to the Grand Trunk Act, compelling the Grand Trunk to reinstate these men in their rights. They did reinstate them in their positions on the road but in so far as their positions o-n a pension list were concerned, they did not reinstate them and that was far more important to those men who had served- thirty or forty years on the road. This is rather belated justice to the men but this document is now introduced by the hon. gentleman no doubt in consequence of his becoming the leader of a great party in this country. I cannot undersand why a document of that importance should be kept hidden because had it been presented to the House at the time it would have enabled the House to have insisted upon the Grand Trunk carrying out its contract with these men. I trust that this document having been produced, and the matter having been made- plain, there will be no further delay but that the men will get justice when the -question comes before the arbitrators.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: This discussion is not in -order on this item. It is only by unanimous consent that it has been carried on.
Mr. MORPHY. I merely wish to ask the leader of the Opposition if he will place the original documents upon the official file of the department so that they will be official when the Arbitration Board sits upon the question of taking over the Grand Trunk railway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already said that I would send the papers to the Minister of Labour. I shall do so and at the same time I will ask him to make a

point of seeing that they are presented to the hoard.
To supplement amount provided by statute chapter 21, 8-9 George V, $100,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that item?


Arthur Meighen: The statute referred to is the Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, under which employment offices are established throughout the country. This vote is to carry them on. lit supplements the amount provided by statute. It represents a reduction of the vote for the present year olf $50,000. This is regarded as necessary in view of the general outlook of industrial reconstruction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Items 256 and 257 are really for the same purpose?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
National Industrial Conference and expenses of commissions arising from 1919 Conference, $50,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What conference is that?


Arthur Meighen: That 'is a conference that the minister expects to call this year, of representatives of labour .and employers from all over -Oana-dla. .This conference undoubtedly did very material service fast year in bringing about a better understanding between the two sides.
For the organization and development of joint industrial councils, $15,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What do you expect to be accomplished by that?


Arthur Meighen: The movement for Joint Industrial Councils is one which promises to' (be. of the greatest value to the industrial world by .assisting in bringing employers and workmen 'together. Officers will be needed for the study and investigation of this subject, and to -as-sist in the organization .and development of Joint Industrial Councils. Such action is in line with the recommendation oif the Industrial Relations Commission which investigated industrial conditions in Canada a year ago.
Administration Employment Offices Co-ordination Act-further amount required, $25,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item is really item No. 256 in the Main Estimates:
Administration Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, including maintenance of employment offices in N.B., -N.S. and P.E.I., $75,000.
Item 257:
To supplement amount provided by statute chapter 21, 8-9 George V, $100,000.

And now we have in the Supplementary Estimates another $25,000. That is going .a pretty fast pace.


Arthur Meighen: It does look that way but the deputy -minister informs- me that the -outlook is better than when the original Estimates were prepared, and he is hopeful ' that they may not require the other two items. This item is different. It is needed to meet -an undertaking -between the Department 'o:f 'Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Department of-Labour whereby the two departments were to -share the expense oif maintaining an employment office at certain points for the benefit particularly of returned soldiers, when, generally speaking, employment conditions would not warrant the maintenance of lan office. The work was carried out by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department -and the sum named represents the share oif -the Department of Labour which is to be -paid to the Soldiers' Re-establishment Department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to again voice the view which iwe on this side of the House have that the Minister oif Labour ought ito occupy a seat in this House rather than- in the -Senate. Thi-s i-s a -branch of the public service relating tc industrial relations in regard to which there are questions constantly coming up in the Ho-use of Commons, and the Government is neglectful of the interest of the country in not 'having in t'he House of Commons a minister who can speak for that department.


William Findlay Maclean: When the
leader of the Opposition is expressing his opinion on that, let me say that I would like to see more representatives of labour in this- Hou-se.
Mr. MoMASTER: It is very important that the Minister of Labour -should be able to come into contact with the opinion of all classes of the community, and I would imagine that they are better represented in this House than in the more leisured and rar-ified atmosphere of the other place. As a matter of fact, the only qualification that the Minister of the Interior has for representing the Minister of Labour is that he i-s a hardworking man.
Department of Labour-$30,000.


Mr. FIELDING:: What does that cover?


Arthur Meighen: That is for last year. There are such items in every department every year. They are -items of expenditure that occur during the year that are un-

provided for and require to be voted in the subsequent year. I am more familiar with the details of my own department. For example, suppose it turns out that during the year we have an epidemic among the Indians of the North. Well, we have to take care of it. If you do not anticipate you cannot do so. Consequently, it is carried over into the Supplementary Estimates. The present vote carried some items of the kind in relation to the Department of Labour.
Administration Employment Offices Coordination. Act; further amount reauired, $45,0100.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: These are also items of last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to be an endless chain.
Indian education, further amount required. $48,000.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Is this for electoral education?


Arthur Meighen: No. The Indians are
trained and educated for useful purposes. W e seek to keep them as far as' possible from under the baneful influence of hon, gentlemen opposite.


Mr. McMASTER:: No doubt.
Civil Government-Department of Mines_
salaries, $446,682,50 ; contingencies, $6,000.


Mr. PARENT:: What is the reason for
the increase in this item?


Arthur Meighen: There are two ingredients one, the statutory increases; and, two, the recent creation of the Explosives Division by the Act of a year or two ago. As the increase altogether is only $23,000, I presume the statutory increases would account for most of it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think we can bbject to paying good salaries to people who are engaged in the development of our mining industry. I hesitate to bring the matter before the House because I think it was discussed in another place, but it is of absolute importance that the geologists of the Geological Survey should have sufficient inducements held out to them to devote their services for the benefit of the Dominion.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent has had a great deal of help in the development of its mineral resources from the work done by the Geological Survey. We do not hear much about the mineral resources of the Eastern Townships,
but they are of very considerable value indeed.


William Findlay Maclean: What are they?


Arthur Meighen: Asbestos.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We have one of the deepest copper mines on the continent. It has been in continuous operation since 1879, which, I understand, is a very long period for a copper mine to be operated. Then we have a copper mine in the county of Brome, which, after having been closed down for a good many years, has been re-started recently, due to the new method of ore extraction, making it possible to operate at a profit. Then I suppose that the asbestos deposits of Black lake, Thet-ford, Robertson, and the vicinity are known all over the continent.


William Findlay Maclean: Where is that asbestos refined and finished?
^ Mr. McMASTER:	It is of two sorts.
First we have the crude asbestos which is used practically in its native state. Then we have asbestos-bearing rock, which is ground in immense crushers into a sort of flour, and it is exported just the same as the flour my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) prepares in his mill. Of course, it is not of the same sort; his flour will burn; but asbestos flour will not burn. We produce about 85 per cent of the world's asbestos, and our transportation facilities being quite adequate, we are able to export a great deal of that and so help to pay the interest on our public and private debts. We have all sorts of mineral deposits- among others, graphite, mica and chromite.
But the point I wish to make is that the Geological Survey has been of such immense material assistance to the development of the mineral wealth of Canada, that the good men in that survey should not be allowed to leave the service. But recently at least a third of the staff have accepted engagements with private firms at salaries far above what they were getting in the department. I am told-and I wish to draw this to the attention of the minister that these men complain not only that their salaries are low, but that in the department they have not got a chance to develop their professional capacity. Of course, I can understand how hard it is for a Government to compete with private enterprise in engaging the services of capable men so far as salaries are concerned; but it does not seem to me that skilled

scientific men who are devoted to their profession, not for the money to be got out of it, but for the opportunity of service to be rendered, should be given a free hand to develop themselves as far as possible m order that they may be satisfied with their positions and give good service to the country.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) in what he says about offering due encouragement in the way of salaries to scientifically trained men. Not only have we good men in the service, but our universities and schools of .science are turning out these good men. But coming back to the question of asbestos production, in that regard we have practically the same monopoly as we enjoy in this respect to nickel. So far as our nickel is concerned, as a matter of fact until quite recently the entire refining of the nickel was carried on outside this country, and the resultant profits, of course, went to outsiders; and the same thing is true of asbestos. It is high time we had a national policy for the development of these great sources of revenue and work. I hope it will not be long before such a policy is initiated so that we may enlist the help of our geologists, our mining men, our men of 'business, and our men of capital and enterprise to develop these valuable resources to the fullest extent, and not ship out our raw material for the benefit of the workmen and industries in other countries.


Mr. McMASTEK:: Let me make one remark the member for South York. He has got that bee in his bonnet-


William Findlay Maclean: I wish you had too.


Andrew Ross McMaster: His idea is that it is for the Government to be constantly interfering with industry.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is his idea. It seems to me that it is an absolutely mistaken policy. Let the Government see that justice is done, but let industry have a chance to work out its own salvation.


William Findlay Maclean: Even in the United States?


Andrew Ross McMaster: This idea of controlling the export of different things has come before me in a most striking way. For instance, take the embargo on the export of sugar. It has resulted in charges and

counter-charges between sugar refiners, brokers, and merchants, and the whole thing, I think, is most disastrous to the business life of this country. Let the Government act as umpire to see that the game is played fairly; but do let the Government refrain from being the transportation owner, the banker, the joint controller, and the interferer in things which private individuals can do much better for themselves.


William Findlay Maclean: Good-bye.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Victoria, Vancouver, way ports, and Skagway, steam service between-further amount required, $12,500.
IMr. FIELDING:	I wish again to draw
the attention of the minister to what I think is a mistake in the omission from the steamship subsidies of a small grant for the service between Froude's Point and Lockeport. My hon. friend said he had the impression-and on that ground he dropped the item-that this was a ferry service of three quarters of a mile. The service, I have ascertained, is over a route four miles long, and if they have to drive round by the road it is five miles. But the importance of the service is that it is the only link of connection between a large town on the south coast of Nova Scotia and the railway line,-a town that has not the good fortune, so far, to be on the main line. This subsidy is not for the advantage for any private concern. The town of Lockeport, an incorporated town, established this so-called ferry out of its own resources; there has been no profit to any private enterprise, and it is only by these various forms of assistance that the service has been carried on at all. It really amounts to this: if you withdraw the -subsidy the town people will have to pay an additional thousand dollars by way of taxation, because they cannot be isolated from the world. I do not know whether the minister intends to bring down any further Estimates, but if not I hope he will take the matter into consideration and be in a position to give the assurance that provision will be made next session for this subsidy. I want to emphasize the fact that this would not be putting money into any private pocket. It is the enterprise of the town. A failure to grant the subsidy means additional taxation of the town people, and the town of Lockeport, like others-, has had a great deal of taxation this year already.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I shall be very
glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Mulgrave and Caruso-steam service between -further amount required, $2,000.
['I shall be very\nglad to look into the matter.']
Mr. ROBB:: Early in the minister's administration of the department, he held out some hope to the shippers that there would be a reduction of insurance rates on the St. Lawrence route. Has anything been done in that direction?


George Green Foster: That is an old and very vexed question, involving a great many considerations. For four or five years before the war negotiations were carried on with a view to alleviating the difficulties existing in this connection. Conferences were held with shipping authorities and insurance companies, but nothing resulted to do away with the disparity that existed. Then the war came and since the war nothing has been done. Before the war broke out a proposal was made that an insurance company be formed in Canada to carry the risk, with a possible guarantee by the Government that losses up to a certain amount would be covered. At one time I had hoped that such an association would be formed, but the war knocked that east and west, as they say, and nothing has since been done. When things get back more nearly to normal I hope that there may be some solution along these lines. I almost despair of a solution along any other line than that of the formation of a good, strong, Canadian company, perhaps aided by-well, I was going to say it, but I cannot do so because my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) is shaking that wise head of his and I do not want to get into any controversy with him at this late hour. But I hope next year to have some additional information for my hon. friend.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not abandoned hope of reducing the rates?


George Green Foster: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I greatly regret that 1 have been the innocent means of depriving the committee of the pleasure of listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But' with regard to these subsidies, I would be glad to know that the minister had looked into them all with a view to seeing whether some of them could not be cut out. I am appalled and tile people of this country are appalled at the grants and aid which are given to this, that, and the other enterprise. I feel as if Canada was supporting a whole lot of things which really should support themselves.


George Green Foster: Now, my hon. friend must remember that a great deal of 287
what appears to be honest, straightforward criticism is made because the man who criticises does not really know the circumstances. I have been up against these railway steamship subsidies since 1885, during all the time that the Government of which I have been a supporter has been in power. My economical tendencies are well known; if my hon. friend does not believe me let him ask the hon. gentleman who is at this moment sitting by his side (Mr. Burrell), who knows in how many instances I have tried to thwart him, sometimes successfully but oftener not successfully. I have tried my level best to stop duplications and to bring down prices so far as subsidies were concerned. They have been cut down this year to the extent of $1,200,000-and I have been in hot water a good many times because I have done that.
In fact a little bit of hot water has just ncrw been thrown on me by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). If my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) ever has the extreme felicity and the delicious torture of occupying a governmental position in a department which has to do with these and similar matters, I will compare notes with him ten or twelve years after his experience commences, and :I shall be glad to know what he thinks about the matter then.
Mr. MdMASTEIR: I only hope that on the opposite side, should such ian occasion arise, I shall have as sincere and honest a critic in my tendency towards economy.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. MoMaeter) has the misfortune to live inland.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to make a correction. I live on Brome lake in the summer time.


George Green Foster: That is a puddle.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is a fresh-water man and he has not the flavour of the sea which is, I think, necessary for the proper production of the best elements of mankind. I do not, however, insist upon that view; but an hon. gentleman who lives within easy reach of a railroad-and he is more likely to be troublesome if he has three or four railways running about his place-[DOT] finds himself very critical about some little expenditure that is required to bring the comforts of civilization to people who live on the seacoast and who have no other means of communication than by sea. Therefore, I cannot expect my hon. friend to appreciate salt water subsidies. But if he would get away from his inland view



and spend more time on the sea-coast, he would see the necessity of some of the people who live on the seashore getting proper means of communication.	[DOT]
Trade and Commerce-to provide for the reimbursement of persons or firms put to loss by the closing of the Grain Exchanges in the summer of 1919, $2.0,224.49.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the explanation of this item? (Many people last money last year who would be very glad bo have it made good to them.


George Green Foster: I will explain this item very briefly. It was touched upon yesterday in the course of our discussion of the Canada Wheat Board. Last year the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg opened and conducted business for six days, and at the end of those six days the Government intervened and the grain exchanges were closed. That closing of the grain exchanges followed upon the adoption by the Government of the policy which it carried out last year of marketing the wheat of the country through the agency of the Canada Wheat Board. During those six days that the grain exchanges were in operation, buyings and sellings took place and contracts were made. All at once the gate was shut, and those buying and selling did not have the advantages or the freedom of the market toi carry out their transactions to the end and, consequently, toi cover themselves. In the end losses were incurred to the extent of about $28,000 or $30,000? The argument put up to the Government was that, as the grain exchanges had been interfered with in their legitimate business and had been stopped in a moment from carrying out those contracts to a conclusion on a free or open market, therefore, they should not be subjected to that loss. The policy of the Government was undertaken with the general good of the country in view, and my opinion was that as, on the whole, the policy was adopted in the interest of the farmer to market his grain, therefore, that expense ought to be a part of the expense of the year in marketing that year's crop. There was, however, a legal objection, and the Canada Wheat Board was debarred from making that payment after adjustment, because of the opinion given by their legal advisers that they had not power to do so under the powers that were given them under the law. Therefore, the Government took the matter up and in justice made an investigation. No commissions were paid; no profits were paid; no brokerages were paid; they all had to meet their losses as 
regards that; nothing but actual out-ofpocket losses were paid, and these were carefully investigated by the Canada Wheat Board itself. The losses, as actual losses incurred and paid out, were, after investigation, cut down to about $20,000, and that amount was premised by the Government to the losers, as that seemed to the Government to be fair and just. This is an item to maxe provision for that payment.
This year my hon. friend will recollect that in taking permiseory legislation as regards effecting a wheat board arrangement the same as last year, which legislation may be put into effect, an amendment was moved making provision in the Bill far just such an adjustment as this if, after the opening of the exchanges, the Government finds it necessary in the interest of the farmers to intervene and to superimpose the work of the Canada Wheat Board. In that event the Canada Wheat Board will have authority to make these adjustments and these payments.


William Stevens Fielding: Where there are buyings and sellings as described by my right hon. friend, there are presumably profits and lasses. We apparently make good the losses. Do we get any credit far the profits?


George Green Foster: There were no profits in these transactions.


William Stevens Fielding: The operation of buying and selling generally means profit to somebody and loss to somebody. Under the circumstances, however, I have no objection, and I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman has investigated these matters.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: They were investigated very thoroughly.
Administration of Justice-to provide annual fee to O. M. Biggar K.C., for professional services, $10,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Will this item be necessary now?


Mr. DOHERTY:: It is necessary because in the Estimates of the Department of Secretary of State only $2,000 is provided' for. With this amount we shall have the full salary provided for under the Franchise Act.
Department of Justice-additional amount required for Military Service Branch, $10,000- additional amount required for Internment Operations, $50,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The additional amount
required for the Military Service Branch

is the amount found to 'be necessary for the purpose of completing the gathering of information for the making of a complete report on our operations. It becomes especially necessary by reason of questions asked in the House, which cover a vast field of details, with reference to the enforcement of the Act in different parts of the country. I am in expectation that we wall be able to do. the work for a little less than $10,000, but that is the amount estimated to be necessary.
As regards the other item of $5,000, this is principally for- the purpose of refunding to people who- were interned moneys that were taken possession of during their internment, and moneys coming to- a large number of these men by reason of an allowance of twentynfive cents- a day given for their labour, that being the equivalent to what is -given to a soldier for doing like work. Without going into details, I may say that the country derived most substantial benefit from the labour that was done in these camps,


Mr. NESBITT:: Have we any internment camps going now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The entire operations of the Internment Branch are practically completed1 but for making these settlements, and the whole establishment is under a month's notice to terminate their engagements. It is proposed that th-ese final operations be handed over to the Department of the Secretary of State to be dealt with .in connection with other matters dealing -with the property of alien enemies.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is being done
with the officers' who. have been engaged on this work? I understand that several of them were civil servants. Have they been transferred to other departments or have they been dispensed with entirely?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were not civil
servants when they came into our employ. They were temporary employees and always so understood it. Their services are being simply dispensed with. We have given them a month's notice.


William Stevens Fielding: *I think the hon. gentleman spoke of refunding to these men moneys that had been taken from them.
I assume that these moneys, when taken from them, went into the public treasury and were accounted for in due course? "


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. All moneys received went into the treasury.
287J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this money paid for service in the internment camps paid to enemies.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. Every interned man was an alien enemy, and it iwas thought right to make that allowance. We would be entitled if we strictly enforced our rights under the Treaty to appropriate all property of alien enemies. We -have no greater right to- appropriate the property of an enemy who was interned than that of any other alien enemy. As a matter of general policy it is not considered that we should enforce our right as regards alien enemies resident and established in this country, and the great bulk of these interned -men at the time of th-eir internment were residents in this country. Large numbers of them were simply let out at the termination of the war, and all those who were considered in any way dangerous were deported to their own country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was there a large
proportion deported? [DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. . I cannot say
exactly, -but I do not think over one-fourth of them were deported, if as much as that.


Mr. JACOBS:: There seems -to have been a good deal of delay in the payment of these moneys. Many of these men were discharged over a year ago, and in some cases they have not yet been paid. Would the minister explain the reason for the delay?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are being paid just as fast as their claim's come in and they can be properly verified. I think there -has been 'Considerable delay by reason perhaps- of misunderstanding on the part of these men as to their rights and their failure to appreciate that if they would communicate directly with the department and furnish the necessary information their claims would be dealt with as promptly as possible. It has been felt by the officials concerned that in some instances, at all events, it was necessary to be particularly careful with regard to the making of payments to -persons who came as agents or representatives, the desire being to make -quite certain- the money went to the actual beneficiary. I have pressed upon the officers' to expedite settlement as much as possible, and they have assured me that that will be done.


Mr. EULER:: I "wish to Ibring a case to the attention of the minister. I do so with a certain reluctance, but I feel that a matter of justice is involved. Some weeks ago, in the course of a statement I made, I referred to a man who was interned at Kapus-kasing. He was a New Zealander; he had been naturalized in New Zealand something like nineteen years before the war began. He was kept in an, internment camp in Canada three or four years, although he was a British subject and had had no trial. After the armistice he was deported, in error. It was not the intention of the Government to deport him, but simply to release ham and return him to his home. A protest was made and the man was brought back. That part of it was all right, but the man, I believe, has made a claim on the Department of Justice to be reimbursed for certain losses that were incurred. For instance, he was taken away without any notice and he claims that his goods and chattels disappeared while he was in the camp. He feels that, being a British subject, he is, entitled to some compensation. I think that through his solicitor he made a request to the Department of Justice for a hearing, but so far he has not had any response. It seems that as a matter of justice something should be done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into that myself and see that justice is done. The hon. gentleman speaks of this man as being a British subject. I understand that the Was originally a German subject and that he was naturalized nineteen years ago in New Zealand. That naturalization Would not make him a British subject in Canada and we had to deal with him as he was. In future ;we hope that the New Zealand Parliament will pass the necessary legislation to give general effect throughout the Empire to their naturalization. But nineteen years ago all our naturalizations, including naturalization in the United Kingdom, were in the position oif being purely local. This is only one instance of the regrettable effect of the situation. We haid to treat the man as not being a British subject but whether he is a British subject or not, if he has suffered loss by reason of a mistake or default on the part olf any officers of the department, it would seem 'to me equitable and just that be isbould have compensation and I shall look into the matter carefully.
Civil Government-Royal Canadian Mounted Police, salaries, $32,987.50; Contingencies, $9,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the increase of $5,587.50?


Mr. ROWELL:: It is due to the transfer to this office of certain officials who were in the Department of Justice in connection with the Dominion Police, plus two statutory increases.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the Department of Justice item show a corresponding deduction?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.
Civil Government-Post Office Department- salaries, $1,006,770; Contingencies, including $50 to W. Cooch, $150,000.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: Before that item carries, I wish to speak of certain matters concerning the post office at Edmonton. The Civil Service Act, as amended in 1919, second session, section 45, provides for promotions and the section reads a,s 'follows:
Promotion shall he made for merit by the commission upon such examination as the commission may by regulation prescribe.
The commission may by such regulation restrict the competition at such examinations to employees, or to employees of a certain class, or classes of a specified seniority and may prescribe what marks may he obtained by such employees foir ,e:ffir ieney amd s:ini loin'.ty. Suich marks shall not, however, exceed one-half of the total marks that may he obtained on the examination.
It is clear, Mr. Chairman, from the reading Of this section that promotions are to be miade upon merit and upon examination, that the examination means an examination upon which marks miay be given, that marks are to be given and that by that method merit may ibe determined. Recently a vacancy was created in the post office at Edmonton by the transfer of the deputy postmaster from that office to the Department of the Inspector of Post Offices at Edmonton. Three people made application for the deputy poistmastership, a man by the name of .Glendenning, another named Thompson and another named Orydermian. No examinations were set for these people in Edmonton. The 'deputy postmaster general, the superintendent, Mr. Ross, and the postmaster at Edmonton, Mr. George S. Armstrong, by themselves determined that a man by the name of Rojitledge, a clerk in the post office at Winnipeg, should be transferred to Edmonton by way of promotion. Mr. Routledige was not in any way subjected to ,an examination but was merely promoted upon- the record that be had in the post office at Winnipeg. I am not taking any exception to the appointment of Mr. Rou'tledge in so far as his -efficiency or

ability to fill the (position, is concerned. My objection is that the Civil Service Act has been violated and that it is evident that the Civil, Service Commission is feeing imposed upon fey the deputy heads and notably in this case fey the deputy postmaster general and by the superintendent
post offices1, Mr. Ross. It is clear, from a -return (which has been made ito- the House that the Civil Service Commission is not performing its Ifunctions but that it is capable of 'being influenced by certain -powers that fee. The first communication I desire to call to-your attention in this respect is that to be found on pages 63 and 64 of the return. It is a letter directed to the postmaster at Edimoniton, Mr. G. S. Armstrong, fey iMr. George Ross, the chief post office superintendent. I shall not read the Whole letter because I wish to take as little time as possible with this matter but there are certain- portions that 1 desire to put on record. He -says:
You further informed me there is no person now attached to the Edmonton post office
capable of undertaking the duties of assistant postmaster and in the interest of the service it will be necessary to bring a man from some other office. You also wrote me to that effect, and I transferred your letter to the Post Office Department.
Further on:
However I am quite prepared to take full responsibility for nominating Mr. Routledge, but I must ask you as postmaster at Edmonton to make such enquiries as you consider necessary and proper to determine whether the enquiries I made are quite satisfactory to you.
-and so forth. Then towards the end of the letter he says:
You may say if you choose that I instructed you to write them-
-that is instructed him to write to the postmaster-or some authority in Winnipeg-
-but I would not go further than these two officers and I would ask that the matter be treated confidentially for the reason that no person except the Deputy Postmaster General and myself know that I have nominated Mr. Routledge to fill the vacancy and I do not want any undue pressure brought to bear even under present conditions until the matter has been settled.
That is the first indication we have of the department communicating with Edmonton -not to ascertain whether there is anybody in Edmonon capable of filling this position, but repeating a conversation that took place between George Armstrong and Mr. Ross himself. Then we pass on to the letter, to be found on page 28 of the return, from Armstrong to Ross. I will not take up the
time of the committee irn reading it, but that letter substantially says:	Hurry up and
make the appointment. Then we come to -a letter, on page 59, from the postmaster at Edmonton in connection with Mr. Cry-derma n, one of the applicants. I would like the committee to take particular notice of this letter by reason of the fact that the department at Ottawa acted upon it.
George Armstrong to Mr. Ross:
March 6th, 1920.
I understand clerk M. R. Cryderman of this Post Office is doing all he can to secure the appointment for himself. However, I beg to assure you that he is entirely unfitted for such a responsible and executive position. His lack of judgment in my estimation debars him entirely from consideration for this appointment. As an example, last Saturday at noon, it became necessary for the clerk i/c General Delivery Department to remonstrate with Clerk Schroeter in one of the wickets for his neglect of duty and careless work, whereupon Clerk Schroeter immediately struck the Clerk i/c, resenting the attitude of Clerk Swaffield in speaking to him. Clerk Cryderman was standing by, witnessing the whole affair, but did nothing whatever to stop the scuffle. Immediately Clerks Parraton and Gregory of the Despatch Department, observing the trouble, rushed forward to separate these clerks, but Clerk Cryderman interfered, telling them to leave the	men	alone,	that	theywere all right, and	that	their	place	was	backin their own Department. I have talked this matter over seriously with Clerk Cryderman and have tried to point out to him forcibly that his duty was, when the trouble began, to do everything in his power to separate the men, and put a stop to the row, but Clerk Cryderman feels that he did right in leaving the men alone, which is entirely opposite to my judgment to what should have been done, as I feel that it is the duty of every clerk in the Post Office to do everything in	his power	to put	a stop toany trouble of this	kind,	and	to prevent	it. if
in his power.
This one action on the part of Clerk Cryderman, to my mind, demonstrates that he is totally unfitted for any such position as that of Assistant Postmaster, and I am giving you this information in order that you may be the better acquainted with this man's ability, should his name be placed before you.
Now, Sir, this is a letter from the postmaster who, |in the last four or five years, has 'been responsible for that post office, notwithstanding the fact that theft after theft has taken place, and notably a theft of $50,000 some few months ago as a result of ;which every clerk in the department was under suspicion of having taken that money.
I am also informed by detectives who worked on the case that there is just as much .evidence against the postmaster himself as there is against any of the clerks. However, the point I want to make is that the man who is responsible for all these things that took place in the post office at Edmonton is the one who tells Mr. Ross

that Mr. Cryderman is not a fit and proper person to become deputy postmaster by reason of the fact that he would not interfere between two men who were fighting. Now that is the whole information given to the Government by the postmaster at Edmonton.
R will be noted, Mr. Chairman, that when the post office clerks struck - all over the Dominion the men at Edmonton stuck to their posts. Twice in the course of a year the post office employees throughout the country were on strike whereas the Edmonton men were staying at their posts-. Yet this is the kind of treatment that is given to them by the Civil Service Commission and by the deputy head of the Post Office Department.
Then we have in the return a letter from Mr. Ross to Mr. Blondin. The appointment of Rutledge was not being made fast enough and Mr. Eoss in effect says to Mr. Blondin: Kindly insist upon the commission making the appointment.
On page 49 of the return is to 'be found a letter written by iMr. Eoss to the Postmaster General to the following effect:
Acknowledging receipt of the Superintendent's letter dated the 3rd inst., file No. 11165, stating that the question of the appointment of Mr. Thomas A. Rutledge, of the Winnipeg Post Office Staff, to the position of Assistant Postmaster at Edmonton is at present before the Civil Service Commission and that the Commission is again being asked what action it is intended to take in the matter, beg to say it is vitally important that the appointment of the Assistant Postmaster at Edmonton he made immediately. If the Commission in its judgment is not agreeable to the appointment of Mr. Rutledge, then may I most respectfully suggest that the Commission name an Assistant Postmaster and appoint him. The Edmonton Office is being semi-disorganized owing to insufficient supervision, such as a capable Assistant Postmaster would he in a position to afford.
Then in further correspondence between the deputy Postmaster General and the commission, the former writes to the latter and states- that they should make this appointment. Notably in one letter the deputy Postmaster General says -among other things that Mr. Rutledge has a comprehensive experience in post office work. He enjoys good health, he has a good education, is energetic, possesses good executive ability, and will make a first-class assistant postmaster. The post office inspector at Winnipeg and the chief post office superintendent concur in the above views. The postmaster at Edmonton states that-
-there is no person in his office whom he considers is qualified to satisfactorily fill the position in question, and as a result of enquiries

made states that he does not know of any person whom he could recommend for the position in question in preference to Mr. Rutledge.
Therefore, he says to the -Civil Service Commission: You shall appoint Mr. Rutledge.
Then the letter carriers of Edmonton communicated with Dr. Roche, -Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and pointed out the injustice that was being done. In reply the Civil Service -Commission told Mr. Campbell, Secretary of that Association at Edmonton, that Mr. Armstrong had stated that there was no person capable of filling the position and that they were appointing the person recommended by the deputy head of the department.
Now, Sir, I need not take up more time reading these communications. I have shown you that: first, the terms of the Civil Service Act have not been respected; that the -men in the city of Edmonton applying for this vacancy were not treated even courteously by the department; -that the Civil Service Commission was dictated -to by the deputy Postmaster General and Mr. Ross; and that in the end Mr. Rutledge, who was not submitted to an examination or test,- was transferred to the city of Edmonton to take the place of men, any one of whom, I have reason to believe, could pass the qualifiying examination to become deputy postmaster. I call attention to that because it is only one of the cases that have come to my notice through the relation of stories by different members. In Edmonton I submit that there has been absolute neglect by the deputy Postmaster General to treat our men fairly. All that they asked was that the Civil Service Act be respected, that they be given the examination, and that he who obtained a sufficient number of marks should obtain the position.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should not like to let the item pass without stating that in the view ol the department the postmaster at Edmonton was in no way responsible for the loss of the money referred to. I do not think it would be right, speaking for the Post Office Department here, to permit the implication to go out that after the first investigation the department felt that there was ground for a claim upon the postmaster by -reason of the loss of the money referred to.
On the other point, all I can say is that from the standpoint of the Post Office Department and -the proper administration of the service, there is no man more competent to express an opinion as to the qualifica-

tions of the officials in the territory under his jurisdiction than Mr. Ross, the post office inspector. The fact is that both the postmaster at Edmonton, and Mr. Ross, as well as the deputy Postmaster General, reached the conclusion that there was no man in the Edmonton post office qualified for the position of assistant postmaster. That being so, the department followed its general practice of recommending to the Civil Service Commission the man in the service whom they considered best qualified. The man so recommended was the chief clerk in the Winnipeg post office.
I believe in all matters of promotion the commission does confer with the deputy head of the department, as is of course quite proper, because the deputy head is posted as to the officials in his department who are best qualified for promotion. I am advised by the commission-I have no personal knowledge of the -fact-that in this case they acted, they believe, within the provisions of the Act and appointed the man best qualified for the position.
I recognize that it is quite proper for my hon. friend (Mr. Mackie) to bring the matter to the attention of the House, and I shall be glad to draw the attention, both of the department and of the Civil Service Commission to the representations which he has made here this afternoon.


Herbert John Mackie: I would like to add that I have no desire to reflect on the deputy Postmaster General, neither have I any desire to reflect on the postmaster of Edmonton, because I have not the evidence before me upon which I can form a judgment. I have been denied that evidence by the President of the. Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) because, as he stated in the House, it was impossible for me to have the evidence as it might show how the culprit might be detected. I make no reflection upon Superintendent Ross, or upon Mr. Rutledge, who has been appointed. But I do say,-and I have no answer to it-that section 45 of the Civil Service Act provides for the procedure whereby promotions shall be made, and that the Act has been violated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am rather surprised
that there should be an inciease in the civil Government of the Post Office Department, when the Government has thought it proper to appoint, over the heads of the Civil1 Service Commission, the firm of Grif-fenhagen and Associates to investigate the department, and when, in the Order in Council appointing that firm, one of the reasons given for justifying the appointment
is that reductions to the amount of several hundred thousand dollars can be made in the department. It is stated also-


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will
permit me, the increase is simply the statutory increase to the staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite understand that it is the statutory increase. But if the department is to have its staff decreased, there is no necessity for this large figure.


William Daum Euler: Does this item include the pay of the letter carriers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, that will be reached later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to get an answer from my hon. friend.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that where a staff is in existence and is entitled to certain salaries, those salaries must be voted and paid. If, as the result of investigation of the department, it is found that the staff should' be reduced, then, of course, those men who are relieved of service will not get paid. In the meantime the money must be provided to carry on the service with the present staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But in the report which was laid on the table of the House the other day you have the admission on the part of the Government that this department is overburdened with a large number of civil servants, and the reason given for the appointment of the firm I have referred to is that their investigation of the department will enable them to recommend the dismissal of a large number of employees. It is further stated that this investigation will be carried out within a reasonably short time. Therefore, I do not see why you increase the figures this year.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sorry that I cannot add to the answer I have already given ' to my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I to understand
then that this report is a sham, and that the Government does not believe the expenditure in the department will be decreased as suggested? Has my hon. friend read the report?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, I have.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well what does the report say?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I may say to my hon.
friend that this will be a proper matter for consideration when the item in connection

with the reorganization of the Civil Service comes before the committee. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is responsible for the item, will be able to deal with my hon. friend's question. I submit that this is not the occasion to enter into such a general discussion as my hon. friend has referred to. Let me repeat: this item covers only the salaries of the existing staff of the inside service, plus the ordinary statutory increases to which they are entitled. The vote is necessary if the service is to be carried on. An Act, which has already passed this House provides that retiring allowances shall be paid out of salaries, the salary vote; so that it is necessary to have this vote, even if some employees are retired. No one can say what the reduction will be. We would not be justified in reducing the vote at this stage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is understood that there will be a general unloading of the staff of the Post Office Department, yet we are asked to vote a larger amount for salaries this year than we voted last year.


Georges Parent: Some time ago I directed the attention of the Government to the fact that when a holiday falls on Monday and the mails are not delivered in the cities on that day, the result is that for two days there is no delivery of mail. I am informed that this is a handicap to trade throughout the country, and I have been asked to make this representation to the Government with a view to their remedying the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances, etc., $22,423,143.50.
['Some time ago I directed the attention of the Government to the fact that when a holiday falls on Monday and the mails are not delivered in the cities on that day, the result is that for two days there is no delivery of mail. I am informed that this is a handicap to trade throughout the country, and I have been asked to make this representation to the Government with a view to their remedying the situation.']
Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is a good deal of agitation among the rural mail carriers with regard to their remuneration; in fact, they have asked that they be put on a salary allowance. I do not know that I am in sympathy with that suggestion, but in their complaint they say that when they are allowed to resign from their positions and their routes are opened up again, the department sends inspectors around who practically coerce them into submitting a lower tender. than will pay them to carry out the work. Does the minister know, that this system or theory is carried out by the department? If so, in my judgment it should not be. These men should have a fair opportunity of tendering in the open market and of getting reasonable remuneration for the work they do. If any of them

are forced to carry on under the agreements which they made three or four years ago, they will be out of pocket. We should treat these men fairly, just as we would treat any other human beings.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
William Daum Euler: I should like to add just
a word to what the two previous speakers have said with regard to rural mail drivers. As I understand the matter, they have two chief grievances, both of which seem to be very fairly argued. One is that the pay which is accorded to them is entirely too low, and the other is that they have to wait for an unusually long time, something like three or four months, for their pay.
The conditions under which rural mail drivers are suffering are, of course, the result of what we call the high cost of living, and they have not had the' relief that has (been given to others in the postal service who are known as civil servants. The rural mail drivers are not, I understand, strictly speaking, civil servants, but they obtain their employment under the contract system. As everyone knows, in the last four years conditions have changed very materially for the worse for all of us as regards living costs. I well remember, two years ago, I think it was, 'when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was acting Postmaster General, when a similar complaint was made on behalf of the rural carriers, he stated that where it could be shown that conditions had become very much worse since the contracts were signed, if proper representations were made, the men could be relieved of their contracts and new contracts could be entered into. I believe something of that kind has been done, but I do not believe it has been altogether general. I understand there are still a good many cases of men who are receiving utterly inadequate remuneration and who have not been relieved of their contracts, in some cases, possibly because they have not had sufficient assurance to go to the Government or, perhaps, to go to the hon. member representing their constituency and ask him to help them out. It has been only those who have had sufficient assurance to try to help themselves who have received relief. I can say from my experience, without casting any criticism upon any official, that where applications have been made on behalf of those who have a grievance, relief has not always been given. A serious condition certainly exists. For example, in the riding which I represent, one rural
driver was obliged to keep two horses, and he gave all his time to the work for a salary of $1,000 a year or a little more. As a matter of fact, when he figured this out carefully, he found that he had for himself something like $1.50 a day. It may be stated that he tendered for his contract, and that is true, but I do not believe that in case of contracts with private employers, such employers would, under the new conditions of living, insist in all cases upon their employees living up to the terms of the contract. The Government of Canada might very well grant to these people reconsideration of their contracts. In fact, the condition is such now that the whole subject of rural mail contracts ought to be reviewed, and they ought to be placed on some definite, fair basis. The drivers, I believe, asked for $60 a mile, and while I am not prepared to say whether that is fair or not, I believe it is not very far from a just figure. In the case which I have just mentioned where the man was receiving a little over $1,000 a year, he had a route of something over thirty miles. That contract was finally cancelled and new tenders were called for. The lowest of the first tenders that came in was for $1,800, and the department would not accept that, because they said it was altogether too high. New tenders were accordingly called for, and the result was that the department had to give a contract at $1,800, which, under the circumstances, I thought was not too high. The Government should review the whole case and make some definite, fair arrangement under which all the men and not only a few will receive remuneration in accordance with their services and in accordance with the self-respect of 'Canada. Moreover, some change ought to be made in regard to the manner in which the men are paid. Men ought not to be called upon to wait for three or even four months before receiving their cheques.


Mr. SMITH:: I should like to commend the action of the Government in connection with their work as regards the rural mail. Whilst I do not altogether agree with the petition of the rural mail carriers, I think many of the points in their petition are in the right direction. My object in rising is principally to point out-and I say this from my knowledge and experience in my calling-that when these men complete their outfit, it is impossible for them at present prices to exist. In my county, I know some of them, serving, perhaps, two routes, have been losing from $1 to $2 a day. It might be possible to meet part of their peti-

tion by giving a certain amount per mile to the present mail carriers. I do not say whether $60 a mile would be right or not, but from my present knowledge, it would not be very much out of the way. I am, however, satisfied on this point, that while the present system of tendering was all right in the old days, it is not right to-day, and the unfortunate part of the matter is that a great deal of work is done, not by young men, but by men up in years who, perhaps, have small families, and it is quite impossible for the work to be done at present prices. In the near future, some new course may possibly be adopted which may be in the interest, not only of the department, but of the rural mail carriers.


Herbert John Mackie: From information which I have gathered, I should draw the conclusion that each and every member of this House has approached the Postmaster General or someone in authority asking for an increase in the indemnity paid to the rural route delivery people. They have done so at the request of the drivers and probably at the request of many of their constituents, and I doubt if there is a rural constituent who is not in favour of an increase. When the rural constituents and the members approach the Government, what conclusion are we to form as to the obstinacy of the Government ot the department in not meeting the wishes of the members?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I should like to support the contention put forward by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) and some hon. members on 'the other side. The claim of the rural mail carriers is well founded. I do not believe there is a (member of this House who has been at liberty to consider the claims of the rural mail carriers who is not convinced that their demands should be supported by every member, and be granted by Parliament. The mail carriers serve their country throughout the whole year practically without a single day's rest, with the possible exception of Sunday. Nothing but force majeure deters them from carrying out the conditions of their contract. In a blinding snowstorm and the worst possible weather they carry the mail and distribute it to the boxes along their route. They ask for $60 per mile per year. In other words, they ask that the mail carrier who carries the mail, say, ten rriiles from the post office and back again tVie

same day, should receive $1,200 a year, that is, twenty .miles at $60 per mile. The man who has such a task to perform has to keep two horses. Is there any man in this House who would consider that too much to pay a man who has to keep two horses and rigs, winter and summer, and give almost his whole time to the work? I do not believe it is too much. It is claimed by the Government that if a contractor is not satisfied with the price he is receiving he may ask the Postmaster General to cancel his contract and new tenders will be called for. But in many cases the mail carrier has been at that job ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years. He has practically abandoned all hope of engaging in any other occupation, and should he ask for the cancellation of his contract, the possibility exists that someone else not in full possession of all the circumstances and requirements may submit a lower tender and get the contract. The new man afterwards finds himself in a very serious and very precarious position because he has tendered too low. I think the Government should enter into a conference with representatives of the mail carriers from all over the country, and discuss this question with a view to an agreement whereby, without the treasury of the country being robbed, the hardships of these people will be relieved. I agree with all that has been said by hon. members who have spoken on this subject as to the hardships which the mail carriers are enduring patiently in the public service. The only answer that is given bv the department is: " They decided to accent the price they are now being paid, so they cannot complain. They can have their contract cancelled if they wish, and new tenders will be called for."
For the reasons I have given I do not think it is fair to expose these men to the risk of losing a contract with the conditions of which they have complied, in some cases, for a quarter of a century.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: As there will probably be no vote, I just want to stand up and say that in my judgment I think something ought to be done for the men engaged in rural mail delivery. In my constituency, where the routes are long and the roads bad, the present terms are a great 'hardship. I would also like to put in a word for the country postmasters, who I think are perhaps the poorest paid officials of the Government.


Mr. PROULX:: I wish to associate myself with those who have spoken on behalf

of the rural mail carrier. I think they should be given an increase. I think the maximum price allowed per mile is too low, and especially so during the last few years. I submit that a fair way to deal with'the rural mail carriers would be to allow them a sliding scale of increases until their contract expires. They are asking for a minimum of $60 a mile. I do not think that is too high. I think it should be granted until their contract expires. As my hon. friend from Beauce has said, I do not think it is fair to expose the rural mail carriers to the risk of losing their contract by having new tenders called for. I think it would be a great injustice to the men who have been doing this work for so long. The Government have already granted increases to judges and to themselves and the members of this House, and I trust they will consider this very worthy class of public servants.


William Findlay Maclean: I think that this whole question should be reconsidered in a very full way, at a conference between some representative of the Post Office Department who is cognizant of the situation and representatives of the rural mail carriers. I believe they have a grievance, and they are at least entitled to a reconsideration of the whole question with a view to finding, if possible, a better basis for the service than now exists. It would take a little time, tout the question is worthy of being reconsidered in a broad way, and it should be done promptly so that some relief may be given to these men.


Mr. KAY:: I wish to add my voice in support of the pleas that have been made on behalf of the rural mail carriers by hon. members on both sides of the House. There is no question that these men who are faithful servants of the public are to-day, through no fault of their own, carrying the mail in the rural districts at a daily loss. Many of them tendered three or four years ago, when prices were very much lower, and the money they are receiving from the Government to-day is not sufficient to pay for the feed of their horses. I am quite sure that the people of this country do not desire any class of men to work for this Government without fair remuneration, and I would ask that the Government give this matter very serious consideration.


Mr. BOYCE:: I wish to support what has been said on behalf of the rural mail carriers. There is no question that they are doing good work for very little return. There is nothing in it for a man who has
to keep a team of horses and drive twenty or twenty-five miles a day and gets only $600 or $700 a year. I think they should receive $1,200 a year at the very least. It is impossible in the winter for a man to carry the mail with only one horse. I do not think the country wants any person to work for nothing and I am sure that if this Parliament fails to do something to increase the remuneration of mail carriers it will do an injustice and it will fail to carry out the wish of the people of the country.


John Wesley Edwards: I would just like to say a word in regard to the proposition made in the petition for the rural mail carriers for a flat rate of $60 a mile. I am not going to say that it is too much. I know that in parts of my own county it would he a low price rather than a high one. But let me give an illustration of how that propo-. sition would work out if it were accepted. On a- route which was tendered for in a part of the country I represent the present carrier is being compensated at the rate of about $35 a mile. His tender was only $3 lower than that of the next man. Suppose you gave the present carrier $60 per mile, what would those who tendered just a few dollars lower than he did say as to the way they had been treated? Again, the proposal to take it out of the tender system and make a flat rate would necessitate putting it under the Civil Service Commission, letting any person make application for these routes, fixing the price of each route according to mileage, number of boxes, or in some other way, and making a schedule. You must either do it in one way or the other. You either have to ask for tenders,, and if you ask for tenders you have to give fair play to the man who was perhaps a dollar or two above the successful tenderer, or else you have to cut out the tender system entirely and allow the Civil Service Commission to appoint these men. Every person knows that within the last six months the prices of feed and materials have gone up. Every man who has entered into a contract as a rural mail carrier in the last year, in view of the increased cost of horseshoeing, hay and oats, should, if he so desires, be allowed to have his con^. tract cancelled.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question raised by
the hon. gentleman is a very important one and it has received a great deal of consideration at the hapds of the department. It will receive still further consideration. The question of whether the contract and tender system which has pre-

vailed in past years should be discontinued and a flat rate contract basis adopted is one involving very many important considerations of public policy. Members will recognize that a flat rate which might in a certain district, depending on the character of the country, be excellent, and perhaps more than fair compensation would not be adequate in a different character of country with natural obstacles to overcome. Therefore it is difficult to consider the question of a flat rate as applied to a country as diverse in its natural characteristics as is the Dominion of Canada from thei Atlantic to the Pacific. The old contracts, or all those entered into over five years ago, I understand, have been cancelled and new contracts have been entered into in each case. Most of the contracts now existing are ones that have been in force for a limited period. All these new contracts have been entered into at rates very much higher than the old contracts. On contracts entered into this year more is paid than on contracts entered into last year' and on contracts entered into last year more than the year before. The matter will receive the most careful consideration by the department and representatives of the rural mail carriers will be consulted before it is finally decided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: Both. In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Argue) who has asked as to the compensation of postmasters in cities and towns I may say that on the 22nd of this month an Order in Council was passed based upon a report of the Civil Service Commission providing for the regrading of these officers and for increased compensation in certain grades. The following statement was sent out by the department to all postmasters under date of yesterday.
Circular to Postmasters-
Post Office Department, Canada.
Ottawa, June 29th, 1920.
Postmasters are informed that on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, an Order in Council has been passed fixing the rates of compensation to be allowed at offices of

grades 1 and 2 formerly designated revenue offices as follows :-
Salary-
50 per cent on first $1,000 of revenue.
30 per cent on revenue for $1,000 to $10,000.
20 per cent on revenue over $10,000.
A minimum salary of $60 for offices having a revenue less than $120.
Rent, Fuel and light-
An allowance based on the revenue of each office according to the scale in force since 1st April 1917. This allowance is not to be paid at offices in Government Buildings or in buildings leased by the Government. Forward Allowance-
15 per cent on the revenue of all dependent offices far which diiineet forward dluity is performed and 75 for indirect forward duty, the minimum forward allowance to be $5 for each dependent office, for either direct or indirect forwarding.
For Night Duty-
An allowance varying from $20 to $200 to Postmasters who are required to open their offices before 7 a.m. and to keep them open after 8 p.m. the allowance to be fixed according to the time occupied and the amount of work to be done at each office.
Compensation for the transaction of Money order, Savings Bank and Postal Note Business.
Four cents for each Money Order issued and one cent for each Order paid.
Savings Bank business 275 cents on every $100 deposited.
Postal Note Business-one cent for each Postal Note sold.
The salaries and allowances to be paid Postmasters each year shall be calculated on the revenues of their respective offices for the previous year, increases to date from the 1st of April of the year in which the salaries are revised and reductions to take effect from the 1st of October in the same year, but in order that Postmasters may obtain the benefit of the new scale from the 1st of April 1919, the salaries paid for the year 1920-21 shall include arrears for the fiscal year 1919-20 according to the new scale. In cases where the revenue is found to have fallen off in 1919-20 no refunds of the salaries already paid for that year will be demanded.



[Stage Direction]
Deputy Postmaster General.
My hon. friend will see that me are making substantial increases in the scale of the allowances to postmasters.
Mr. CROTHERS:: 
Mr. VIEN:: Does the statement given by 'the minister mean that the increases apply only to post offices where the postmasters *are paid on 'commission, or do 'they apply to all post offices?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The statement I have read relates solely to post offices where the postmasters are paid on commission.


Thomas Vien: I note tba't in this item there is an increase 'of $285,000 Ifor salaries. On* what basis are these increases worked out?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is due to two causes: First, the statutory increase to which the employees are entitled year by year, and secondly, to an increase in the staff in certain post offices, necessitated by the fact that the staff has been put on the basis of an eight-hour day and forty-four hour week. To meet that condition there had to be an increase in 'the number of employees in those offices.


Thomas Vien: But that does not really apply to all post offices?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It applies to all the post offices where the employees are officials of the Government.


Thomas Vien: It applies then to all post offices enumerated in the schedule under item 340? (Post office-Outside Service, $22,423,143.)


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Then if the minister will refer to some items he will observe these facts: In the city of Edmonton with an expenditure of $180,000, the increase in salaries is $19,000; in the city of Victoria with an expenditure of $118,000, the increase is $13,000; in the city of Regina with an expenditure of $117,000, the increase is $12,000; in the city of Montreal, with an expenditure of $1,294,000, the increase is $35,000; and in the city of Ottawa, with an expenditure of $300,000, the increase is $35,000. I would like to ask the minister how it is that the city of Ottawa, for instance, is receiving this year an increase in salaries amounting to $35,000 when the city of Montreal with an expenditure of $1,294,000 does not receive any more?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The explanation is simply this: So far as the statutory increases are concerned, they are practically automatic in their operation and they may be larger in one office than in another, due to the fact that a larger number of employees were that year entitled to the statutory increase. If the employees had reached the maximum of their class they would not be entitled to the statutory increase. In any office where there were a large number of employees who had 'reached the maximum of the class the increase in the Estimates for this purpose would be limited; whereas if there were a substantial number who had not reached the maximum the increase would necessarily be greater. With respect to the second cause for the increase, there are offices where, by reason of the number already on the staff, it was not necessary to appoint so many new men when the hours of work were shortened. It was unnecessary, because they had already such a staff that they were able to adjust the work and carry it on efficiently without making that increase which was necessary in other offices.


Thomas Vien: I do not fully understand the explanation Of the minister. He says the staff in certain cities was sufficient

whereas in other cities it was not. Now take the city of Montreal, with a population of over 750,000, and last year the expenditure was $1,294,000. As you are all aware the city of Montreal is the commercial metropolis of Canada; it is the head of ocean navigation. Surely there is no- city in Canada where the staff of the post office must be kept as efficient as in the city of Montreal. That is shown by the large expenditure amounting, as I have said, to $1,294,000. The population of Toronto is somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 and while the expenditure there last year was $1,166,000, the increase for salaries amounted to $73,000. On the other hand I fail to understand why in a much larger city, where the business is growing in a far greater proportion, the increase in salaries only amounted to $35,000. It seems to me that we did not receive the fullest explanation as to the discrepancy between the two increases.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not want to enter into a discussion such as my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) raised the other evening when he suggested that the number of employees in certain post offices was in his opinion excessive. I think my hon. friend mentioned Montreal and Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And Toronto, and Ottawa, and other offices.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not pretend at the present time to be able to say in what offices there are surplus employees. But I believe, from the information I have received, that in the Montreal post office there is an adequate staff, and that by reorganization probably it can be substantially reduced. The point to make clear is that there is absolutely the same treatment for all post offices and all employees. The latter get only the increases to which they are entitled under the statute, no more and no less; the additions to the staff in any office are due solely to the change in the hours of work required by reason of the actual work. While it is true, as my hon. friend has said, that Montreal's population is larger than Toronto's, the fact is that the volume- of post office business is substantially larger in Toronto.


Thomas Vien: What is the revenue of the Toronto post office as compared with the Montreal post office? And what is the number of employees in the two offices?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will get the information in a minute, but I would rather not

delay the House in view of the desire to make progress.


Thomas Vien: Let the item stand in the
meantime.
Mr. LEMIElUX: Is it a fact that a contract has been entered into between the city of Montreal and the department for the enlargement of the post office?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as the department is aware, there is no contract for the enlargement of the Montreal post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice a little item
here of $15,000 to provide for the expenses of administering the Act respecting annuities for old age. This very important legislation was passed some years ago and the people should be encouraged to take advantage of it. I would like a statement from the minister in charge as to whether there has been a substantial increase in the number of annuitants? This was practically an old age pension scheme, and at the time it was well received by the people.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure my hon. friend will be gratified to know that at an early stage of the present session-I think probably before my hon. friend had returned from Europe-the Government passed a Bill which was in charge of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (,Sir Henry Drayton), amending the existing act so to enlarge its iscope. It provided for an increase in the interest rate and also for an increase in the amount of the annuity that might be purchased. The Government contemplates a very substantial increase in that branch of -the work of the department. The number of annuitants is steadily increasing, and as the advantages of the Act become more widely known we anticipate it will be availed of to a much larger extent.


William Stevens Fielding: Following the question of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), will the minister kindly inform us what machinery is being employed to make this system known? Life insurance is generally gathered in by vigorous agents. How are we gathering in these annuitants?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am informed that the method adopted is by advertising in the press. Since the new legislation has been put through we have not had an opportunity to consider what further steps should be taken, but I imagine that probably still more active methods will be adopted to make the advantages of the Act known to the people.


Mr. BEST:: Allow me to revert to the rural mail carriers to aek a question. In eases where the department decide to release a contractor and ask for tenders is it the fact that when those tenders are received below $45 a mile they still hold the old contractor to his contract?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Where a contractor represents to the department that he entered into his contract under conditions which made it impossible for him' to foresee the increase in prices which has been so marked in the last year or two, the department authorize the re-advertising of the contract. When tenders come in if the price is such as the department considers fair, then a new contract is awarded. The old contractor himself is at liberty to tender, and if he puts in a price that is considered fair, and it is the lowest tender, he gets the contract. If the department consider the price is beyond what would be reasonable for the Government to pay, they have in their view no alternative in the meantime but to hold the man to his contract, because the mails must be delivered; but in such cases they take the matter up with a view to seeing if an equitable rate can be arrived at. I have no doubt that in a number of cases real hardship has ensued before men have been relieved of their contracts, but the department feel that unless they are to allow the public service to suffer they can take no other course than to hold the old contractor to his bargain until they can get a new contract at a reasonable rate. That, I understand, is the general policy the department pursues.


John Best: What is the information on which they base their opinion that a tender is too high?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is based upon the
knowledge and experience of the officer of the department in carrying on this branch of the public service. The general average at present is about $45 per mile.


Mr. HENDERS:: I would like to call attention to the fact that these contracts are for four year periods. I think if the department would issue them for two years it would relieve cases where hardship does arise. The department might consider that suggestion.


William Daum Euler: Will this appropriation
cover the increased amounts coming to the mail carriers in the cities? If so, when may these men expect to receive payment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is included in a separate item-a lump sum vote in the Supplementary Estimates covering all branches of the public service. I hope we may dispose of it in a very short time.


William Daum Euler: Will the minister tell us
about when payments may be expected? The delay is causing intense dissatisfaction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice-


William Daum Euler: I would like an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Estimate, we hope, will go through to-day. The amounts will then have to be applied to the various branches of the service, but the payments should be made in the very near future. In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Vien), I may say that the revenue of the Toronto office for the year ending March 31, 1919, was $4,458,970, and of the Montreal office, $2,398,185.


Thomas Vien: What is the number of employees in each?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the figures
here, but I am advised that the number in the Montreal office is in excess of the number in Toronto.


Thomas Vien: Quebec city has -a population of $100,000 or over; the increase for salaries this year in that office is $1,200. Ottawa, a city of about the same population, gets an increase of $35,000. Toronto; a city of 500,000, gets an increase of $73,000, while Montreal, a city of 750,000, gets an increase of $35,000. It seems to me that there is no justification for the discrepancy that is indicated by these figures.


William Findlay Maclean: The explanation may be found in the volume of business.


Thomas Vien: No, the volume of business
is not proportionate to the variations in these figures. I would think that the difference might more reasonably be accounted for by the fact that the cities which get the larger increases are represented in this House by the larger number of hon. members.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is an item here for the repair of mail bags; also the following item:
For hand stamps, scales, and weights for post offices and for other miscellaneous items of post office charges and equipment.
Are tenders called for these contracts?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Tenders are called in
practically all cases-certainly where the amounts involved are of any magnitude.


Mr. LEVIGUEUR:: Who is the parcel
post supervisor in the district of Quebec?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Dr. Fiset.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Has he an office in Quebec city?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think so. I do not think he requires one for his duties?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where does he draw
his salary?	,


Newton Wesley Rowell: From the head office, I think.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: It is reported in Quebec that Dr. Fiset, who was appointed by Order in Council in 1914, has never made any report. Some time ago I put the fol

lowing questions with regard to Dr. Fiset:
1.	In what capacity is Dr. Michel Fiset employed as a public officer?
2.	When and by whom was he appointed in his present public charge?
3.	Has he submitted a report to the Government? If so, when, and to whom?
4.	Has he an office in Quebec city? If so, where is it located?
5.	Whalt pay or salary does- this isajid Dr, Michel Fiset receive?
I received the following answers from the President of the Council:
1.	Parcel post supervisor.
2.	Appointed by Order in Council, dated April 18, 1914.
3.	Not <to the. knowledge of the department
4.	No office supplied hy this department.
5.	$2,300 a year.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What does he do?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Nobody knows what he does. He draws a salary but he makes no report.


Thomas Vien: Will the minister state definitely what Dr. Fiset's duties are?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand that he was originally appointed to promote the general development of the parcel post system. I am not sure that he is able in that capacity to render services in excess of the value of the amount that he is paid. It may be that in the reorganization that office will he dispensed with.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Why was such an
appointment made in Quebec and not in the other cities?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There was one such officer in Western Canada, at Winnipeg, I think. He has since died and the office has not been refilled.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is the department
waiting for Dr. Michael Fiset to die before the office is done away with?


William Daum Euler: Has the department any
contract with the ^National Railways for the carrying of mails?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, very large contracts with the National Railways, as well as with the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk.


William Daum Euler: How do they compare?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
William Daum Euler: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know whether it would be wise at the present time unduly to transfer the service to the National Railways. At present all the railways say that they are carrying the mails at a very substantial loss, and the Railway Commission has reported in favour of an increase in rates which would more than double the amount now paid and involve an additional expenditure of several million dollars. Unless the rates are increased we would be imposing an additional burden upon the Canadian National Railways, in excess of any revenue we would receive from carrying the mails, if we transferred all this business to them.


William Daum Euler: On the other hand, if the rates are increased the Government would be the igainer, would it not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should hope that under those conditions a substantial part of the service would be transferred to the Canadian National.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the item "parcel post isupervisors, $5,800" be struck out. The minister has stated that the supervisor in the West has died and that the office has not been refilled; and I do not see that there is any need for retaining -the services of Dr. Fiset in Quebec.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-Outside Service-to pay certain railway mail clerks for extra services in connection with checking incoming and outgoing British mails during the winter season of 191920; St. John, $72.75 ; Halifax, $49.13; total, $121.88.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Why has the transfer of
British mails at Rimouski been abandoned?

Was there any change in the contract with the steamship companies? Formerly the mails were received during the summer season at Rimouski and despatched to Halifax one way and Montreal the other, for the: West. To-day I noticed that the steamers do not stop at Rimouski and the mails are delivered at Quebec by the steamship companies. This delays the delivery of the mails by several hours. At Rimouski we have a complete organization which has existed since Confederation. The Government has built there a pier ^vhich has cost the country, I should say, not far from $500,000, if not more. The Government has dTedged the surroundings of the pier; all the mails were delivered there, and passengers going to Europe could come from the Maritime Provinces or from the western provinces on special trains and take the steamer at Rimouski. This has all been changed in the last few years, and now this landing pier is absolutely useless. I should like to let the Government know that the travelling public does not approve of the change, and I protest . on behalf of the people of Rimouski against that change.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
iMr. LEMIEUX: No, I want to get some explanation. I have sat in this House since 1911 and on no occasion before have the Poet Office Estimates come to be debated except in the dying hours of the session. To the very courteous questions I put to the acting minister, I am entitled to and I want an answer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Chairman,-


Georges Henri Boivin: I have no objection
to the question being answered, but I must point out to the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) that his question is not strictly in order on the item under consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg your pardon. Will you read the item?


Georges Henri Boivin: (reading):
Post Office-Outside service-to pay certain railway mail clerks for extra services in connection with checking incoming and outgoing mails during the season of 1919-20:-St. John, $72.75 ; Halifax, $49.13; total, $121.88.
That certainly has nothing to do with the landing of mail at Rimouski.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It has reference to
British mails.
The 'CHAIRMAN:	No discussion is necessary. I have allowed the answer.
288 [DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appeal from your decision.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have allowed the
answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have ruled me out of order and I appeal from your decision. This refers to British mails, and I am speaking about British mails. I shall have no other occasion on the discussion of the Estimates to get an answer, and I claim that you have no right to bar me out when this is my only occasion to get an answer, and when the Post Office Estimates are not brought before the House until the dying hours of the session. I appeal from your decision.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to go through the mere formality of an appeal when the minister has risen to answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand that I am in order? As I have been ruled out of order, I want to know if I am in order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am afraid the hon. member did not exactly understand the ruling given by the Chair.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was very clearly
given.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the Chair was that, strictly speaking, a question concerning the lailding of mail at Rimouski was not in order under this item. The rule of the House is very clear that all discussion on Estimates must be not only relevant, but strictly relevant to the item under consideration. The item under consideration provides for the payment of the small sum of $121.88 to pay mail clerks at St. John and Halifax, and the chairman reminded the hon. member for Maison-neuve that his question was not in order upon this item although at the same time, he added 'that he did not desire to prohibit the minister from giving the hon. member a reply. The remark was madq for the purpose of calling the attention of the committee to the fact that this was the last day of the session, and that it would be well to keep strictly within the rules in order to expedite the business before the committee. The answer was not ruled out and as the question was allowed, I hope the hon. member will not insist upon an appeal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not insist, but I wish to state the facts so that nobody may be mistaken as regards the decision the chairman has given. I put a question and I claim that this question is absolutely rsle-



vant to the item, because the item refers to the sorting of British mails and I asked the minister why it was that the sorting of British mails, which formerly was made at Rimouskd, has been abandoned for these two ports. The chairman said that I was out of order. I said: "This is the only opportunity that I have to get an answer to this question." During t'he session, Mr. Chairman, a delegation came from the county of Rimouski and I was interviewed by that delegation to make representations to the Government that the old service at Rimouski should be reinstated. The Chairman said that I was not in order, but yet he was ready to allow the answer to come from the minister. If it was in order to give an answer, it was in order to put a question, because there could be no answer if there was no question. I will, however, not appeal.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to strike out the words "Towards expenses of Imperial News Service." This is a clerical error. That description' relates to the (following item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister explain iwhat this item is for?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This item is hut a repetition of a similar item which has appeared in the Estimates for some four years now. The amount is a contribution made fey the Government to the Canadian Press, Limited, to ensure an all-Canadian news service. It was represented to the Government some years ago that it was not possible to secure the transmission of telegraphic news from East and West over the large vacant places that exist between certain sections of the country, unless there was some governmental assistance. Prior to that time Western newspapers, particularly, received the larger part Otf their telegraphic netws from the United States.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee at any great length at this hour of the session, but I must emphatically protest 'against, this expenditure o!f public funds for the purpose of influencing-[DOT]perhaps I should not put it that way. II will say this: I believe thfe principle is absolutely unsound. We should have >a press in Canada which should not receive any favours whatsoever from the Government in power. Such grants as this are open to the gravest afeuse. I say that in the financial condition of our country it is absolutely wrong to expend the sum of even $50,000 in this way. It is not necessary. The papers of Canada can give the Canadian people the news without help from the Government. The whole tendency of this sort of procedure is to make of the press of the country an organ, not for disseminating public opinion, but for disseminating the opinion which the Government in power desires to have disseminated. I have recently been reading some secret war documents published toy the German Republican Government-the telegrams and other .communications which passed between' the different European Governments before the war broke out-and it is a sad reflection on human nature to see in those communications 'the statements made that it would be well to spend such-and-such a sum of money to influence public opinion through the newspapers Of such-and-such a country. I would ask the Government, if they have any regard for economy-I would appeal again to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) to think of his ancient protestations in favour of economy-to cu't out this item of $50,000. It is not necessary and it should not be passed.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has a most extraordinary conception of the purpose of this vote.- It was initiated, in the first instance, by reason of representations made toy a delegation representing. I think, nearly all the newspapers of Western Canada. Any one who realizes the physical conditions of this Country must know that there is a large 'area of land almost uninhabited between the eastern part of this country and the western part, and it is in the public interest that the newspapers in the East and in the West should know what is going on in the West and in the East respectively, and that news along that line should Ibe disseminated. The press which appeared before ue was absolutely irrespective of party, and the Government has no

more control over the news -which is thus disseminated that the hon. member for Brome. It has never thought of attempting to exercise the slightest control. The newspapers themselves would resent any such attempt on the part of the Government, and no member of the Government has, either directly or indirectly, interfered with the expenditure of this money or with t'he purpose for which it is voted. I went a great deal further than this some years ago. I urged then-I ithink it twas fifteen years ago-that it would pay this country to have four hundred or five hundred miles of telegraph line connecting the East and the West operated by this country without the expense of transmission being charged against the news toeing carried over it. My reason for that opinion was that il thought it was important, and I still believe it is important, to toridge that four hundred or five hundred imiles and ito bring the East land West directly into touch and communication with each other. The proposal that I then, made was not parried out, but this proposal dor making the East acquainted with the ideas and aims and Conditions of the West, and to make the West acquainted with 'the East in the same way, is a proposal which, I believe, is thoroughly deserving of public assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Canadian Associated Press, $20,00'0.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend this item by striking out the words "Associated Press," and substituting therefore the word "Press, Limited," and to reduce the item from $20,000 to $8,000, making it the same as last year. The Canadian Press Limited has taken over the work of the Associated Press.
Amendment agreed toi.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this item of the same nature as the previous one?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This item is the continuation of a grant that has been made for a -still longer period for the purpose of assisting in the transmission of cable news from the Old Country to Canada, It is entirely under the control of the Canadian Press. A grant has been made for many years for this purpose.
Mr. MdM AST HR: I wish again to register my protest against this expenditure of public funds. It has been stated that the Government has no control over the Press, that the Press is quite at liberty to transmit* 288^
what it desires through this agency. But my hon. friend in charge of this Estimate will not deny that throughout the war the newspapers of this country were dependent in large measure upon legislation passed by this Government to get their raw material, that is, the paper on whiph they print their news, from the manufacturers at very much less than the commercial rates. Now, cannot my hon. friend see, cannot the House see, the inadvisability of the sources of public information, receiving grants-in-aid from the Government of the day? It seems to me to be unwholesome. It may amuse the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), he may think it a joke; but there are a lot of people in this country who do not think it a joke. Let us restore to the press of Canada its prestige and the confidence which people had in it years ago. I believe that can only be done if the Press dissociate itself from the slightest possibility of being under obligation to the Government of the day. I had some experience lately in appreciating the attitude of a number of newspapers in this country towards the Government. Their attitude was that it was the Government's business hot see that they got the paper for their newspapers. They thought that was the business of the Government, not their own business; so accustomed had they become, apparently, to rely upon the Government. And we know that such an appetite grows on what it feeds on. I protest against this legislation. I know gentlemen are anxious ta get home, but if anything I can say will influence them- one of the members from British Columbia shakes his head. No doubt anxiety to get home is the overmastering passion in his -mind at the present time. I say that this whole business is vicious and unwholesome and the sooner it is done away with the better. I trust that the President of the Privy Council whom I congratulate on having reduced the item from $20,000 to $8,000, will do even better and wipe it out altogether.
^Oanaman representation at Washing-ton, $80,-


Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move to amend that item by substituting for the words "at Washington" the words "in the United States". I do that because the Auditor 'General thinks that under the present designation the vote might be limited to Washington whereas it -includes both the New York and Washington offices.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
45^4
William Stevens Fielding: Has the minister any further information to give us concerning this item?


Mr.   KOWELL@: I do not know just what my hon. friend has in view.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe that many hon. members of this House, who are more willing perhaps than I am-although I am not always unwilling-to support the measures which the Government bring down, will join with me in a protest-it may he in silence-against the action of the Government in again endeavouring to commit this Parliament to the very grave and important step which is introduced by this proposal in the absence of any information dealing with the subject. I think it is an amazing situation that the Government should ask Parliament to vote this money in face of the fact that we have not been able to get any information concerning the purpose for which it is asked. I take exception to it from various standpoints. I quite realize that in the carrying on of public affairs it is sometimes necessary to withhold documents from Parliament, I know we have occasions in connection with our public affairs when that is so. But I am afraid this Government is overplaying the part of custodian of confidential documents. We had here last night a long discussion on the Board of Commerce arising out of the fact that the Government had suppressed public documents which really should have been given to Parliament long ago.
Two years ago the ministers returned from the Imperial conference. I have no doubt conferences are useful in a general way, but the only particular feature of that conference that the Government reported to this House, and dwelt upon, was an arrangement whereby a channel of communication was to be opened between the Canadian and Imperial Governments. In times past it has been customary to have the transactions put through the Colonial Office. We were told, and it was represented to bp a matter of grave importance, that in future the Prime Minister of Canada was to have the right to communicate direct with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. This was represented to Parliament as being a very grave and important step. After the lapse of two years I thought it might he desirable to find out how far this new privilege had been found useful. Therefore I obtained an Order of the House asking if we might receive copies of whatever correspondence had taken place under this

new arrangement, and the return came down that in that time certain correspondence had taken place but it was confidential and no scrap of it could he laid before Parliament.
Now we have this Washington business. It is a very grave step. On a previous occasion I pointed out that it is nearer to a constitutional change than anything else that has recently occurred, and yet we are asked to commit ourselves to that project without a line of correspondence dealing *ith the subject. I am strong in my doubt as to the wisdom of the course that is proposed, and whether I agree or not as to the desirability of having representation at Washington I think that almost all hon. gentlemen who listen to me will feel, as I do, that Parliament should long ago have been taken into the confidence of the Government and given to know what all this means. It is on that ground therefore that I protest what has taken place.
But on the merits of. the question-I speak for myself alone-I have grave doubts as to the wusdom or value of the proposition. -I have had some experience of official transactions between Ottawa and Washington, and I have had considerable opportunity, like other hon. members and irrespective of my own official connection with matters of this kind, of observing what has occurred. I might point out that if any reason exists why there should be a change in the existing system Parliament has never been informed of it. No hon. member can point to a single case that has been presented to us by the Government to indicate that there is any need for a change at all. I think that is a consideration of importance. If difficulties have arisen between the Canadian Government and the American Government, or between the' Canadian Government and the Imperial Government, out of the existing order of things, I think it is only fair and reasonable that we should know what these difficulties are in order to justify the steps which it is proposed to take.
There is no intelligent public opinion on this question. In the previous discussion -although I can only be permitted a passing reference to it-it was alleged that many newspapers of the Dominion had viewed this proposal with favour. To some extent that is true, but how could there be any intelligent public opinion on the subject when no information has been given to the House of Commons to show what the object of it is? It cannot be said

that there is any intelligent and well-informed public opinion upon the subject. I have never heard any good reason given calling for this change. We read occasionally in the press that we need something of this sort because of the difficulties of our present system a"nd we are told that if we have any transaction with the Government at Washington we must first send our communication across the water to the Imperial Government. We will send it to the Colonial Office, the Colonial Office will send it to the Foreign Office, the Foreign Office will send it to the Government at Washington and gradually, after the lapse of a long time, our wishes will be made known at Washington. That is the story that is told. That is the only reason that I have ever heard given in the public press or in Parliament for making the change. Is that reason well founded? Does it represent the facts? I say it does not. I say it as a pure dream as to the condition of affairs existing between this Government and Washington. There was a time, no doubt, in the olden days, when things were different, when this circumlocution office could be busily employed in the way indicated. But that time, if it existed at all, was long ago. For many years Canadian foreign affairs have not been dealt with in that way. We have had experience with relations between various governments and as far as my own observation has gone we have never found the slightest difficulty in obtaining communication with a foreign government through the agency of the British Government. The great complaint has been that the Imperial Government has stood in, the way of bringing the communications of Canada to, the attention of other nations, but it is not within my knowledge or belief that any such cause of complaint exists.
For a number of years we have had the British ambassadors at Washington coming to Canada for consultation. That has been the practice of British ambassadors. Lord Bryce, in a particular degree, carried out that policy. He came to Ottawa once or twice a year and put himself in touch not only with the Government'of the day but with public men whom he had an opportunity of meeting, and the result was that Lord Bryce was very well informed on all Canadian affairs. There was no difficulty whatever in the way of having Canadian affairs administered through the assistance of Lord Bryce-or the British ambassador at Washington. That was equally true of Sir Cecil Spring-Bice Who succeeded him and
who, sad to say, died here in Ottawa. It will be true in lesser degree of other ambassadors. I am not sure whether Lord Beading came to Ottawa; Lord Grey did not, but these gentlemen were only temporary appointments and they were only at Washington a short time. But it is fair to assume that every British ambassador hereafter to be appointed at Washington will in the future deem it his duty to visit Ottawa and put himself in communication with the ministers of the Crown, showing that there is absolutely no need for any new system in order to have Canada properly represented.
Then there is another thought in connection with this matter. It is proposed to have a gentleman at Washington who is to be the representative of Canada, and we are told that, when the ambassador is away he will be the representative of Great Britain. Well, I am afraid, Sir, that makes the situation worse rather than better, because while he is representing Canada lrrTy	have ^he responsibility to
the Canadian Government and possibly to the Canadian Parliament-though Parliament does not seem to count in these matters I regret_ to say-but if he is to become, for the time being, British Ambassador then he no longer is responsible to the Government and Parliament of Canada-he must be responsible to the Imperial Government. It seems to me that is a fantastic arrangement, and there will be difficulty in connection with it.
There is another thought that I venture, to express. I believe that when any question of real irrmortance arises between Canada and the United States von will have far better representation of Canada's interests if you do not rely upon some gentleman who-I am quoting the words of an eminent Conservative of Montreal in a letter m the press a short time ago describing his arrangement-will be given a desk in the office of the ambassador. I believe that when any real business arises which requires consideration from the Canadian viewpoint it is a very much better arrangement to have a minister of the Crown, fresh from consultation with his colleagues and fully informed of the Canadian, position leaving Ottawa in the evening, being at Washington by the next afternoon, and then . being in a position to represent the interests of Canada. I am sure he would represent (hem much more intelligently and much more effectively than any gentleman who has been spending hi,s time around Washington wondering what in the world he was

going to do next. The whole tendency of this arrangement must be to give Canada a representative at Washington who holds a nominal position. The tendency will be that he will fall into a rut, and the rut of officialism we know very often leads to idleness. If there is anything really important to do the Government will-even now. I am sure, send a minister down from Ottawa to do it, and the gentleman who is supposed to represent Canada at Washington will really come to be a person of only nominal power. I do not think, Sir, there is any need of this arrangement at all.
I do not think any good can come of it. Canada stands so well now with the British Empire generally, and particularly with the Government in England,-by reason of the splendid service she has given in the Great War-that I can understand the tendency of the British Government to assent to almost anything within, and even beyond, the bounds of reason that the Canadian Government may ask. It is flattering for us to know that that appreciation exists; but I am persuaded in my own mind that if the seasoned officers of the Colonial Office and of the Foreign Office could give us their private thought they would tell us they find in this arrangement a very dangerous experiment indeed.
There is one other thought which is worthy of consideration, and it is the financial one. I do not present that as the main consideration, but it is a consideration to which we should give some weight. At this moment we are on the eve of separating, and members will go home to explain in many instances to their people why they were unable to obtain some particular grant which they desired and to which their constituents attached importance-in one case a public work; in another case a breakwater to protect the fisheir-men's gear, in another case, dredging, either in the lakes or on the St. Lawrence, to open some harbour; a post office here, a public building there-a score of things which we all would like to have. We have got to go back to our constituencies and explain that although these things cost a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars we cannot afford them now; we have not got the money. It will be more difficult for hon. gentlemen to give that explanation to their constituents when they can be met with the statement that we are spending a large sum of money in creating this kinder-garden school of diplomacy at Washington.

I have no objection to the extension of our relations with the Gnited States. I have given many evidences in my public life that I attach the utmost importance to friendly relations with the great republic.
I yield to no hon. member in this House my desire to establish such relation; and particularly am I anxious that we establish commercial relations. But I cannot see the necessity or the wisdom of our engaging in this expenditure. Last year $50,000 was proposed for this purpose, this year it is to be $80,000; depend upon it next year will be a great deal more. Washington, I believe, is, for persons in official life, the most expensive city in the world; and if we mean to establish at Washington anything which will, compare with what we are pleased to call now our increasing status and our greater dignity, it is going to be a very expensive luxury. I do not feel that we need it. We have no information to justify us in doing this. I know there are some members of the House who are of the opinion that it is a great thing to have representation in the foreign courts.
I am afraid I am lacking in the enthusiasm which some of them manifest in that way. At all events I strongly represent to you that this is an unnecessary expenditure, it is not a wise expenditure, it is an expenditure which is more likely to get us into trouble than to be of any substantial good.
There is still one further thought that I would like to express. Considering, Sir, that we have no information on the subject, considering that we are going into a blind alley-these are not phrases that are too strong; hon. gentlemen know that they are just as much in the dark on the subject as I am-how far are we going to be obligated by this thing in the future? I am bound to say that in the absence of any information, no Government that arises in the future can be expected to feel bound by any action that thik Parliament now takes; and any gentleman who, under these circumstances and in the absence of any knowledge of what we are doing accepts a position at Washington under this arrangement will be obliged to feel that he is taking very great risks. In all earnestness and in all sincerity I represent that I believe this is not only an unwise expenditure from the point of view of the public interest but I believe it is unwise in other respects. No good can come of it but much harm may result.
Mr. ROWELL; One or two observations
in answer to my hon. friend. The hon.

member opened his remarks by intimating that after the Imperial Conference of 1918 the only important information given this House was in reference to improved channels of communication. I judge my hon. friend could not have been in the House during the first session of last year when the work of the Imperial Conference of 1918 was reviewed. I have Hansard for that year before me, and no less than forty pages are taken up with a discussion of the work of the Imperial Conference of 1918. Many questions came before that conference touching problems affecting Canada and the Empire as a whole. The resolutions of the conference on these matters were reported to the House and were discussed by hon. members for a period covering some hours. Five sixths of those resolutions were laid on the table together with a printed report of the proceedings of the conference. So much for my hon. friend's reference to the Imperial Conference.
My hon. friend's references to Canadian representation at Washington are as lacking in solid foundation as that respecting the Imperial Conference. My hon. friend says that the House has no information. He declares that no papers are laid on the table. One would think it is not possible to obtain information except from documents. Let us suppose that the whole matter had been one of conference and negotiation between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Great Britain what documents would there be to lay upon the table? The arrangement would be set forth in the statement which the Prime Minister would make to the House, and in doing so he would impart full information to the House. When my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the official announcement to the House he gave the substance and the really important features of the understanding and arrangement arrived at. The form of the announcement was agreed upon by both Governments. Does my hon. friend think that the details are a matter of contract and of bargain? That has not been the principle upon which the British constitution has been worked out. There was an understanding, as was stated when the announcement was made to the House-.an understanding which was repeated when the matter came up for discussion-that hereafter Canada should be represented at Washington by a minister plenipotentiary appointed 'by His Majesty on the recommendation of his Canadian
ministers; that that minister should report to and take instructions from the Canadian Government; and that he should carry on his work there in co-operation with the British Ambassador and be a part of the British Embassy. Once you have a definition of the position and status of the Canadian representative, the rest follows as a natural and logical consequence. It would not be possible to define the precise limits of the duties and responsibilities of the Canadian minister. From the very nature of the case the arrangements and the procedure must be flexible. There must be room for development in these relations just as our constitution has developed to meet changing conditions as they arise from time to time. And, further, the arrangement can be modified if necessary to meet new conditions. If the present arrangement does not prove entirely satisfactory, it can be modified. That is clearly understood. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the official statement he made to the House, gave the House the terms of the arrangement arrived at, and everything follows as a natural consequence.
Now, my hon. friend says that there is no occasion for such representation. Take the very matter that we have been considering an this House in the last few days- the coal situation-I merely use it as an illustration, showing how .closely the two countries must be associated together in matters of trade where their vital interests are concerned. That is a case where we get supplies from the United States. Take another matter, the export of pulp and paper; that is a case where the United States get their supplies from us. Both of those questions are exciting very great interest in the two countries1, and they are questions concerning which it is important that there should be no misunderstanding. Both of these questions can he dealt with better by men who understand them, who know all the conditions and who can talk them over as man with man; that is the best means of arriving at a satisfactory solution. I merely mention those two matters to illustrate the class of oases that are constantly arising. Unquestionably it is in the interests of Canada to be represented at Washington by one of her own citizens, who knows Canadian conditions, who is in close tonch with the Canadian Government, and who. is constantly watching over Canadian interests in order that they may he safeguarded. I submit that this House could not more wisely expend

this amount of public money than by voting this item for Canadian representation at Washington.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Many years ago
an English king endeavoured to promote the marriage of his son with, a daughter of the king of Scotland by invading the northern kingdom, and a Scotch nobleman of the time said, that he was not opposed to the match, but he did object to the manner of wooing. Now, that is very much my position in regard to this matter. I have no objection to Canadian national interests being represented at Washington by a Canadian; au contraire, I am very much in favour of it; hut I am extremely doubtful of "the manner of wooing''-I am extremely opposed to the manner in which this matter has been introduced.
Some time ago the matter was before the House, and we asked for information, for the papers to be brought down. We were told by t' :e Prime Minister,, if I remember aright, that he had examined the documents, and had caused them to be examined by some one else, and that they had both decided that it was not necessary that Parliament should see the documents. Those were very doleful auspices under which to introduce this matter. It has been noticed in the British Liberal press, and the Manchester Guardian has stated, that it is too bad that this move has been attended by such unfortunate circumstances. That is the first objection I have to this Estimate. I wish also to protest emphatically against the wrong done to hon. members in bringing down an Estimate of this importance a few hours before we are supposed to finish the work of the session:	It is not fair to
hon members, and it should not be done. There is no objection in my mind to our having a representative at Washington if we can afford it, and that is a question with which I do not propose to take up the time of the House to-night-but I say this: that the man who goes to Washington must be our representative and in the absence of the British Ambassador must not be his locum tenens. I say that is the most dangerous proposal that could be made in connection with this matter.
Let us suppose this case,-and it is not an improbable one; it has happened in the past and may happen in the future-let us suppose there is a divergence of opinion between Great Britain and Canada on some fisheries question, that the British Ambassador is away and the Canadian Ambassador is locum tenens for him. From whom is the locum tenens to take his instruc-
tions? Is he to take them from the British Government and go against the views of the Canadian Government? Or is he to take his instructions from the Canadian Government and go against the views of the British Government whom he is supposed to represent? I protest* against this as an unwise provision, and I would think that this matter involving as it does $80,000. might well remain over until next session. Although .1 wish to state very frankly that any movement by this or any other government towards a full realization of Canadian nationality will always have my warm and enthusiastic support.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman,
the Estimate appeared last year, and my hon. friend has had something like fifteen months to consider it. Therefore I hardly appreciate his injured feeling in respect to lack of particulars.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My right hon. friend will admit that this is the first occasion when we have been asked to vote for money. Is it not?


Robert Laird Borden: No. It was voted last year.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was the money spent?


Robert Laird Borden: No. My hon. friend has evidently given no more consideration to the Estimate than he has to this question. He has propounded what seems in his opinion to be a very difficult conundrum to answer. He says: Suppose the British Government has one point of view with respect to a particular matter and the Canadian Government has another point of view, what will the Canadian representative do if he is acting as Ambassador? I will answer his question toy asking another. Suppose that condition arises when there is a British Ambassador and no one else at Washington, what i.s the British Ambassador to do?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The British Ambassador of course will take his instructions from the British Government. But if the British Ambassador is away, and under the proposed legislation our man is there as locum tenens. he will have to follow either the instructions of the British Government or our instructions.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend, f think, is under a complete misapprehension. If he pretends to say that the British Ambassador at Washington ought to follow the instructions of the British Gov-

ernmeflt in respecf to a matter of purely Canadian interest when the Canadian Government entertains precisely the opposite view, he takes a position which I am not prepared to accept and which this Government never has accepted. The Canadian representative at Washington, if he were acting in the stead of the British Ambassador. would occupy exactly the same position as the British Ambassador has occupied in the past. In matters oif purely Imperial concern he would act under the directions of the Imperial Government; in matters of purely Canadian concern he would consult with and act according to the views of this Government. That is the whole situation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I put a question to my right hon. friend?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, as many as you like.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not possible that a question may come up which is of both Imperial and Canadian concern?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, but the position will he exactly the same whether the British Ambassador is there or whether the Canadian representative is acting in his place. My hon. friend has lost his usual logical sense of the fitness of things if he does not see that at once. Now, so far as the observations made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) are concerned, I should like to tell him that this is not so- new a departure in point of principle as he imagines. How is it different in point of principle from the action of the late administration, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government, of which he was a member, in establishing an International Joint Commission which for ten years has dealt with many matters that formerly were settled through dipHom-atic channels? Has any disadvantage thereby come to this country? Has that occasioned any detriment -to the good relations between Canada and the United States? On the contrary, I venture to think that the International Joint Commission, has been of the greatest possible -advantage to the two countries and has aided in maintaining good relations in respect of matters that might otherwise have led to serious dispute Moreover, the Government of which my hon. friend was a member gave -a somewhat new status to our representative in Paris, and we -have acted upon that -status. The only thing to which we objected when we came into -power was this. We found
Mr. Roy, -a very able and capable man, acting in Paris for Ithe Government of Canada and also for the Government of the province of Quehe-c, and having his salary partly paid by the Dominion and partly by the -province. We did not consider that a desirable condition of affairs, so we asked Mr. Roy to resign as representative of the province of Quebec and -made good to him the difference in salary. I am bound to say that I believe his service in Paris has been of the greatest advantage to this country. He as in very clo-se touch with the British Embassy there, he has established excellent relations with it and he carries on, in some sense, diplomatic arrangements of a minor Character, to the great -advantage, I believe, of this country and the maintenance of good relations between Canada and France.
There i-s -another thing that we might take into account. We have had in London for many years an officer called High Commissioner for Canada. He carries on very important negotiations between the Government o'f this country and -the Government of the United Kingdom, being sometimes brought through his instructions into direct communication and relation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and with the British Cabinet. I do not kno-w that any disadvantage h-a-s resulted to any one from that condition of affairs. ! believe that the service both of the High Commissioner in London and the Commissaire-General in Paris -has been of advantage to this country. I believe, notwithstanding all that ha-s been s-aid, that the presence at Washington of -a Canadian representative will equally -be of good service -and will promote good relations between the t-wo countries.
I would like to tell my hon. l-riend that, much as I res-pect the very able officers in the Foreign Office, in the Colonial Office, -and elsewhere in the British service, I should not be prepared to accept their view as to the desirability or otherwi-se of an arrangement of this character. In such a m-atter we ought to be able to judge for ourselves; so far as I am concerned I do propose to judge for myself. I should -add, however, that so far as I a.m aware of the opinion of the higher officials of the Foreign Office, they see no objection whatever to this proposed arrangement. I think it perfectly manifest, that at some time we must have representation at Washington. About two-thirds or three-qu-arters of the business of the Embassy

relates to Canadian interests. When we have ten, fifteen or twenty millions of (people in this country, are we, in respect of their interests, in respect of their representation at Washington, to say that all these things can ibe (better attended to by other people than by ourselves? Are we to relegate ourselves to a position in the background? I for one do not appreciate that point Of view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is hardly (Correct when he says that Parliament voted last year the appropriation which the Government have asked for this year. Last year we voted $50,000; this year the Government are asking for $80,000, a difference of $30,000. I think my right hon. friend will admit that that is quite correct.
(Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I thought my hon. friend would understand that I was referring to the principle of the vote, not to the exact amount of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend attaches little importance to the exact amount. For my part every dollar is significant and I propose to move that we strike out the $30,000 which is being asked this year in excess of what was voted last year. If when this matter was discussed in Parliament last year $50,000 was sufficient for the purpose of starting this representation at Washington and the money was not used, it ought to be equally sufficient now, particularly in view of the fact that apart from the statement by the Acting Prime Minister we have had practically no information as to what is intended. The principle at stake in this matter is whether or not Parliament is to have a say in regard to our inter-imperial and international relations. Apparently the Government's policy in these matters is one of secret diplomacy. We were told by the Prime Minister, as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) have pointed out, that the Prime Minister had read over the correspondence, that some other person had read over the correspondence, and that as a result of that reading Parliament was not to be informed one way or the other of what the correspondence contained. That is not, I am sure, a method of carrying on the business of the country which will meet with tne approval of the people. Matters of ordinary business as between partners are not carried on simply by understandings; statements and records are kept in which

is clearly set forth the exact position of the parties. If rumour be correct, my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) may not hold the position of Prime Minister very long; he may be succeeded by one of his colleagues or by some other person who may not have precisely the same views on these matters as he has, or I will suggest another possibility. The Government of which my right hon. friend is the head may not be in office very long; it may be succeeded by a ministry that has views of its own on these questions. Should there not be somewhere in the records of this country, documents which will put beyond question exactly what has been agreed to between the different countries, between Great Britain and Canada or between the United States and Canada, on matters affecting inter-imperial and international relations? Assume that some future British ministry should dispute the word of a minister m this House or of this Parliament, and the Canadian ministry-not the same ministry which is now in office-were unable to support our present position other than by the statements made in the House. What position would we be in? In these matters, particularly where they are in the nature of departures, or advances, if you wish to call them so, along lines of constitutional or other development, there is the strongest of reasons why we should have in the records of our country documents which will become in time part of the archives of Canada and which may be referred to as bona fide records of what has taken place. This evening we were informed by my right hon. friend in regard to another very im. portant matter, the taking over by Canada of five ships from the Government of Great Britain, that all of that correspondence was secret; that no member of this* Parliament could see it; yet we are expected to vote a couple of million dollars to maintain the ships once they are taken over. That is the method of secret diplomacy. It is in accord with the proceedings of the bureaucratic administration; it is not the method of a ministry responsible to Parliament, and unless the ministry is prepared to be responsible to Parliament, I fail to see why Parliament should support the ministry. For this reason I move that the present item be reduced by $30,000. I think the time has come when there should be an end to monopoly of control of the affairs of Canada by a Cabinet carrying on the country's business in secret councils. The business of the country should be carried on in the open on the floor of this

Parliament in such a manner that the Government -will be obliged to take into their confidence not only the members of Parliament but the people of the country whose money they are voting to expend.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Stevens Fielding: I put to the Government a question which I thought was a fair and reasonable one. I asked them to state what circumstances had arisen to show that the interests of Canada were suffering at Washington for lack of a representative such as is now proposed. My right hon. friend spoke at great length, but he did not answer that question. I am not surprised that he did not, because I am satisfied no such condition has arisen. My right hon. friend says: "We have a representative at
London and a representative at Paris." True, but they are both 3,000 miles away from Ottawa, and if they were only a few hours' journey away from Ottawa, we probably would have no representative at either London or Paris. It is no argument to say that because we have a representative at Paris so far away, therefore, we must have one at Washington which is virtually next door to us. I notice that the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) is making a change in the wording of this item. He says that the Auditor General suggested it. I shall not ask my hon. friend to confess, but I shall not be surprised if he got the suggestion from some other quarter, that it might not be the wisest policy to fix the representative at Washington.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am very glad to answer my hon. friend. I got no suggestion from any quarter that it was desirable to make a change. When I moved the change, I explained that this item covered the New York office as well as Washington, and the Auditor General thought that if we put in the item "at Washington" that would be open to some question. The New York office is under Washington and, therefore, it is desirable to say, "in the United States" instead of specifically mentioning Washington.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman and the Prime Minister both referred to the extensive trade relations we have with the United States. It is quite true that we have extensive trade relations with that country, and it has, been part of my mission in life to make those trade relations more extensive. I am not sure that the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister has laboured in that direction. But when my hon. friends speak of the commercial reasons as having any great bearing on this question, I fail to see the force of the argument. I have not seen so much of Washington as has my hon. friend; but to my knowledge and belief Washington is not a great commercial centre, and if we want commercial agents in New York, Boston, Chicago, in any part of the United 'States where great business interests are centralized, I should very heartily support my hon. friend in saying that we should have additional representatives in those quarters. He said, "Why, have we not the International High Joint Commission"? Yes, having that, and as it is running smoothly, what more do we want in the same direction? "Oh, but," the right hon. gentleman said,-and I took down his words'-"we are proposing to adopt

that same proposition that there are certain things in our international relations which can be better done by other people than by ourselves." That was my right hon. friend's statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
that.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, my right' hon.
friend did say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, Hansard will
tell.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I have a right under the rules of the House to state in what sense my words are to be understood, and 1 did not intend them to be understood in any such sense.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend
has a right to speak of his intentions, but Hansard has a right to speak of his words. We have not been having the affairs of Canada attended to by other people than ourselves in international affairs for many years. We did not have them attended to by other people when Sir John A. Macdonald went as Commissioner to Washington to deal with the fisheries question. We did not have them attended to by other people when Sir Charles Tupper went again and again to Washington. We did not have them attended to by other people when we appointed representatives on the High Joint Commission of which my right hon. friend speaks. We did not have them attended to by other people when two members of the Canadian Government went down to Washington and endeavoured to conduct negotiations there to extend trade with that country at a time when my Tight hon. friend and his friends did everything they could to strangle that trade.
I do not purpose having any lectures from my right hon. friend as to the extension of trade relations between Canada and the United States. We have no evidence before us that a single thing has arisen to call for this movement. Again I challenge the right hon. gentleman to show that any difficulty has arisen at Washington in our relations with the American Government. This is an entirely unnecessary and wasteful thing. It may be a serious matter. Or it may be that the
9 p.m. most that can happen from it is that the Government will send some gentleman to Washington who will discover that there is nothing for him to do but to occupy a desk, in a corner of the

office of the British Ambassador, and when there is any business to be done, the Gov-eminent will send a man down from Ottawa. My right hon. friend speaks of the coal question and the pulp question which have been before us in the last day or two. I take his illustration of the coal question which is a very serious question to-day. Does my right hon. friend suppose, if we had any chief clerk, or whatever you may choose to call him, sitting at a desk in Washington, the Government wmuld entrust the matter to him, living in Washington and getting the Washington atmosphere for years past? No, the right hon. gentleman would go himself to Washington or would send one of his colleagues-as he is doing now-full of the knowledge of the Canadian policy, full of the knowledge of the Canadian Government, fresh from a consideration of the whole matter. iSuch a representative would have force and weight at Washington. That is the way the thing has been done in the past, and that is the way in which I want it to he done in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: One expression used by my right hon. friend at this moment will, I think, help to make clear what it is that we so strongly object to in the new proposal. If I understood my hon. friend aright, he intimated that the Canadian representative at Washington would have to take charge of the smaller affairs of Canada as well as the larger affairs. That was about the difference between the representation that is now proposed and the representation we have had in the past. In other words, the Canadian representative under this proposal will have to look after all affairs in a general way. My hon. friend said nothing whatever about the proposal that the representative of Canada at Washington shall act for the time being for the British Ambassador whenever the British Ambassador is- absent from Washington. He said nothing about that In his last allusion, although he referred to it in his earlier remarks.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not think it worth while to repeat what I said before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite so, but I feel it worth while to repeat that, so far as this Parliament is concerned, the1 majority of its members are, I believe, strongly opposed to any renresentative of Canada acting as British Ambassador at Washington. I think my right hon. friend has reason to believe that on his own side of the House there are many members who are strongly opposed to any innovation of that kind and certainly every member on this side of the House is unalterably opposed to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is this item for?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Is this the spy service?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the Information Service in the Department of External Affairs which keeps in touch with London, New lork, and Washington, and provides through those offices articles for publication in American and British newspapers relating to Canada and her resources, and the conditions existing here. It also cooperates in furnishing news available in the office in New York and in London.
Mr. MoMASTER: Is this a sort of propaganda scheme after the war is over?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Ernest Lapointe: If this has to do with Trade and Commerce, why is it under the Department of External Affairs?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because the offices in
Washington and New York are under the Department of External Affairs. The High

Commissioner's office is under the Prime Minister, as is External Affairs. This is the Canadian end that keeps in touch with these other offices.
Salaries and Expenses, Passport Office, $65,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not this
something new?	,


Mr. KEEFER:: Fortunately I am able to report that there is a surplus in the pass-post office. We receive more than we pay out. We had a surplus last year of $9,000.
To provide for Canada's contribution towards the maintenance of the permanent secretariat of the League of Nations, for the year 1920-21,
5 200, WO.


William Stevens Fielding: Upon what basis is that amount fixed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this not a repetition of what the minister has already suggested?


Newton Wesley Rowell: At the time the original Estimate was brought down it was overlooked that the contract which had been entered into by the Government for the establishment of the Canadian National Pictorial for Canada extended into the present fiscal year, and this is to make provision for the unexpired portion of the contract to the 15th July.


Ernest Lapointe: How many moving
picture plants is the Government operating at the present time? We voted an amount for the Department :of Trade and Commerce for moving pictures the other day.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The moving pictures for which the House has already voted an appropriation, were no doubt explained by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and are of great advantage to Canada. This is equally to the advantage of Canada but in a different line. My hon. friend is undoubtedly aware that in all the moving picture theatres of Canada for years the pictures used were those depicting American scenes and Am-
['Mr. Rowell.]
erican national interests. The Government received a number of strong recommendations that an effort should be made to substitute, for the information of our people, Canadian and British scenes. An arrangement was made whereby these have been secured from all parts of Canada and the Government has received expressions from public and patriotic organizations of the strongest approval of the change which has been brought about. The effect of this contract which expires in a few days has been that the American companies whose films now erne into Canada have introduced Canadian scenes into their films. Instead of having our young people taught their patriotism from American scenes they are being taught from Canadian scenes. These films are going into the schools in the western provinces and I believe other parts of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: What are the names of the leading moving picture stars who are employed by Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Canada does not employ any moving picture stare.


Ernest Lapointe: Do these films show moving pictures of our ministers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these films the property of the Dominion Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The films, when produced, are the property of the Dominion Government.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have gone into the moving picture business, have we?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have been in it for a, long time with great advantage.


Samuel William Jacobs: They do noit show the Government moving fast enough to suit us on this side. If the Americans have now introduced Canadian scenes in order to compete with the Government why should we continue the subsidy any further?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not intended to continue it. This is to provide for the balance olf this fiscal year. The contract only extends till the middle of July.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then we wall be satisfied with the American films?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; I hope that after this experience we shall be able to get Canadian moving picture scenes * without the assistance of any Government subsidy.

Con! riibution towards fighting the typhus epidemic in Europe, $2'0'0,00'0.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does that come under the League of Nations?


Mr.   KOWELL@: This is our contribution toward a campaign which the League of Nations is organizing, as stated by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) when he was here the other evening. It is a campaign which is essential for the protection and preservation of the health of western nations. Poland and Central Europe are not in a position to combat this disease without governmental assistance.


William Stevens Fielding: To whom do we pay this sum?	*


Newton Wesley Rowell: The League of Nations.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see why it should riot be put under the one heading of the League of Nations instead of distributing the payments in this way.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One vote is a contribution to the expense of carrying on the work of the League of Nations which according to the covenant of the League we are under obligation to make. We are not under any obligation to make this particular contribution. The League of Nations.has no right to assess us for it but the League has decided upon a campaign and they propose to put a protecting barrier against this typhus epidemic from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They have asked the nations that are members of the League to contribute. The hon. member for St. Antoine stated that upon looking at the whole matter and considering the relative ability of the nations that are members of the League, this would be about our fair share of the total amount which the League requires to raise. It is purely voluntary and we are under no obligation.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not suggested any objection but I do say that we ought to have all these items voted together, so that the wayfaring man when he reads them may know what the League of Nations is going to cost us. This is going to be an ever swelling item.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: Just one word in answer to my hon. friend. I admit the exceedingly fine work which the committee is doing and the very able and efficient manner in which it is undertaking that work. It is an admirable committee and the work it is doing in the interest of humanity. I should hope that a much more extended appeal for relief shall be made for the people suffering from hunger and disease in Central Europe, and that there may be a much larger response from the public than has hitherto been the case. I am afraid this vote can not be applied in the way my hon. friend has asked, although the Government will take his representations into consideration in connection with the matter. This vote is a contribution toward the fund which the League of Nations is raising for combatting the plague in Europe.
Mr. LEMIE'GX:	I wish to support the
appeal made by my hon. friend (Mt. Jacobs). I have found that in all our appeals to the public for our various institutions, and in cases of "emergency, our Jewish fellow-citizens have always been exceedingly generous. Not longer than two or three weeks ago the city of Ottawa was

called upon to subscribe to a Catholic institution which is of great service to the young ladies of Ottawa and the surrounding territory. I have noticed with pleasure that Mrs. Freiman, of Ottawa, was at the, head of the movement and she succeeded by her endeavours and her appeals to the public in obtaining a very large sum indeed. The same thing is witnessed in Montreal. We never appeal in vain to Jewish associations; and I say that in the present instance, where they are doing efficient work in Central Europe, in order to try and stop the plague with which the children of these families are threatened, that certainly we could afford to take a part of this amount and give it to the association referred to by my hon. friend. As to the vote itself, my hon. friend the minister knows that I am in full sympathy with it. Certainly the world is threatened with a very serious plague, and I notice that in the United States the press is acquainting the public with the seriousness of the danger. I do not know, however, if this sum should not be applied by officers of the Immigration Department. We are threatened at our various ports with the coming of infected people, and the Government must take very serious precautions in order to prevent Canada from being affected by any of the plagues which are at present devastating Europe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heartily endorse what my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) has said on this matter and I hope the minis' ter will give as favourable consideration as possible to the request.


Ernest Lapointe: Without adding anything to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) I wish also to say that I strongly support his appeal and I hope the minister will see his way clear to accept his suggestion.
To provide for increases in salaries due to the application of the reclassification of the Civil Service, $6,000,000.


Mr. BO WEILL:: This is the amount which it is estimated will be required to provide for the increases of salaries in the Civil Service, both Inside and Outside, for the years 1919-20 and 1920-21. My hon. friends will recall that under the Act passed this session the application of the classification is to date back to the 1st of April, 1919. In the Post Office Department alone they will require a very substantial percentage of this vote amounting approximately to $2,850,000. That will cover amounts due to postal clerks and letter carriers through-

out the country as to which we have already had a certain amount of discussion in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to take any exception to the item; at the same time I do not wish it to pass without protesting against the circumstance that the Government asks us at this very late *hour of the session to vote $6,000,000 and placed before us the classification to which it refers only within the last two or three days. I think the Administration should have had its business further under way so that we could have had the necessary information to intelligently discuss this item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We cannot proceed faster than the Civil Service Commission. We have been urging the commission to get the classification down as quick as possible.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What portion of this amount is applicable to the letter carriers?
Mr. ROWTELiL: The rural mail carriers are working under contract. This applies only to the officials who are in the permanent employment of the Government. I do not know if my hon. friend was in the House this afternoon, but we then discussed the question of the letter carriers on the Post Office Estimates.


William Daum Euler: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister what I consider is a most absurd provision in the regulations. I have before me a communication from a civil servant who finds that his bonus was reduced from $31 a month-


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will permit me, this does not deal with the bonus. The Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will be dealing with the matter later in the evening on the balance of the vote which was before the House some two or three months ago.


William Daum Euler: I understood the minister to say that the letter carriers were included in this item. That would include the bonus, would it not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. This deals with the increases that come to the letter carriers through re-classification, which is quite apart from the bonus.


Ernest Lapointe: Does this item apply to the new salaries under the reclassification of the staff of the House of Commons?


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: If it does apply in that way, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the case of the secretary of the Private Bills Committee and the Banking and Commerce Committee. I understood that his salary has been fixed at $600 less than the salary of similar officers in the House. As chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee I have found the secretary a very efficient man- I refer to Mr. Todd.. I think he should get the same as other men who occupy somewhat similar positions in the House. I would therefore make application on his behalf that his salary be fixed at $4,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The matter my hon. friend mentions will come up on the House of Commons Estimates. I must ask that this item stand for a moment as a slight amendment is required in the wording of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the minister has laid on the Table of the House the re-classification regarding the House of Commons.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is a matter which the Civil Service Commission has taken up with the Speaker. I have not seen the re-classification myself. I will make enquiries and see if it is completed.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would like an answer to my question. I understood the Speaker was deputed to consult with the Cavil Service Commission, but I believe that has not been done. Mr. Todd- is a glaring case of inequality, and I should very much like to see his salary raised to the amount other officers filling similar positions are getting, that is, $4,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My answer was that that particular matter would come up on the House of Commons Estimates. We are not now voting any particular salary, but out of this sum will he paid all increases that are covered 'by the re-classification.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: As I was
out of the House earlier in the evening, I wpuld like to inquire what increases are being made to postmasters in towns and villages?


Newton Wesley Rowell: , I answered that question this afternoon. My hon. friend will find it on Hansard in connection with the Post Office Estimates.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-$5,850.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I find that in answer to the question put by the hon. member for


Newton Wesley Rowell: It does. 289



Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in reference to the Mounted Police Civil Government Estimates, I inadvertently conveyed to him a wrong impression. I had in view this particular item when I told him it was to provide for certain clerks of the dominion police who had been formerly in the Department of Justice and were now transferred to the mounted police. The item this afternoon was to cover three particular appointments-one being a constable of the force, who has been in the office here working as a civil servant, and having passed the qualifying examinations he is now transferred to the Civil Government; the others being two temporary clerks who have passed their examinations and whose appointments have been approved.
Militia and Defence-pay of Staff, $345l600.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that that is the same figure as for last year. Was any money used from the demobilization fund for the purpose of paying the permanent staff last year?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No; I am instructed that it was all paid out of this vote last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose that as long as the work of demobilization is not completed there will be need for the same permanent staff as we have had in the last couple of years?


Hugh Guthrie: This is the permanent staff irrespective of demobilization. We have at headquarters here some officers who are especially charged with demobilization work and who are still paid out of the demobilization vote. This is the regular staff of the-permanent force, and does not include those officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who are doing demobilization work exclusively.
Permanent Force

?6,500,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think it would be safe to cut it down, at the present time at all events. The permanent force, as I explained on a former occasion, has not been materially increased. Before the war it was approximately 3,000; I believe that 2,960 was about the average strength. It is now, including officers and men of all ranks, 3,555, so that the increase in all ranks is 555. But there has been a very substantial increase in pay and also in the cost of maintenance. I have been informed by the proper official of the Department that the cost of maintenance of a private soldier in the year preceding the war was $1.53 per day, and that the cost now is $3.28, a little more than double the pre-war cost. The increase in the pay of the men accounts for a considerable portion of that increase. Prior to the war the pay of a private was 75 cents a day, with certain allowances which brought it up to 90 cents. It was increased upon the outbreak of war to the Canadian Expeditionary Force rate, which was: $1.10 a day. Since the war new regulations have been introduced and approved by the House increasing the privates pay to $1.70 a day. This increase, and the increase of 555 men, accounts for the total increase in the vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to go over the ground that was gone over on a previous occasion, but when we are discussing these Estimates and taking account of what we are to spend on the permanent force,, we must also have regard to what we are paying out on account of the Mounted Police, which are really in the nature of an additional permanent force, and on acount of naval defence. Expenditure under this head is all part of military and naval expenditure. It is proposed in the estimates the minister has brought down to spend the following amounts: Militia, Main Estimates, $12,498,506; barracks for permanent force, $100,000; Air Force, military section, $800,000; Mounted Police, $4,674,066; mounted police, supplementary, $5,850; Mounted Police building, $500,000; Naval Service, one vote of $300,000, another of $1,760,000 and a further supplementary vote of $600,000, a total of $20,000,000. These expenditures do not relate to the war at all; there is a further expenditure of over $170,000,000 on war account, apart altogether from interest on the debt. In addition to that enormous sum the Government propose that we spend this additional amount, of over $20,000,000. In order that the committee may appreciate what that means, I might point out that the ordinary expendi-

ture of this country out of Consolidated Revenue Fund in the last year of the Liberal Administration, 1910-11, was $87,770,000 and the total charge upon capital expenditure was $30,862,000, a grand total of $118,626,000. In other words, we are asked at this time to vote for military and naval purposes one-sixth of what it cosit in the last year of the Liberal administration for all the Civil Government of Canada, the Administration of Justice, penitentiaries, Legislation, Arts, Agriculture, Immigration and Colonization, Pensions, Superannuation, Militia and Defence, Railways and Canals, Public Works,-chargeable to capital and income- chargeable to Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions, Naval Service, Ocean and River Service, Public Works, Lighthouse and Coast Services, Scientific Institutions, Steamboat Inspection, Fisheries!, Subsidies to the Provinces, Mines and Geological Survey, Labour Department, Department of Indian Affairs, Mounted Police, Government of the Northwest Territories, Government of the Yukon Territory, Dominion Lands and Parks, Miscellaneous, Customs Department, Excise Department, Post Office, Trade and Commerce, Weights and Measures, All the vast expenditures of the whole of the Dominion-the civil service at Ottawa and throughout the country; public works; everything-in the last year of the Liberal Administration was only six times the amount which the Government are asking this year for new military and naval purposes. Sir, I think this expenditure is not justified at a time when the Government are resorting to extreme measures of taxation to raise enough to meet the ordinary running expenses of the country. The time has come when the Government should diminish rather than increase its expenditure on military lines. I move, therefore, that this item be reduced by $1,000,000.
Amendment negatived; yeas, 25, nays, 49.
Militia and Defence-printing and stationery, $701,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suggest that it is unnecessary to send in the trunks of stationery that are furnished to members of the House the very fine ladies' stationery which is always included. A saving could be effected in that regard.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. This item has reference only to stationery in connection with the Militia Department.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Hugh Guthrie: This item includes pay of caretakers, barrack labourers, messengers for the crews at Halifax, engineers and firemen in the drill halls, and all other civil employees in the district not provided for elsewhere. In 1919-20, this appropriation was $260,000, and in 1913-14, before the war it was $198,000. I have all the details, but I shall not give them unless the committee *,so desires.
Training areas, $30,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister told us the other day that he had land areas worth between three and four million dollars that he did not know what to do with. Could he not use some of those properties for training purposes?


Hugh Guthrie: This item is put into the 'Estimates annually for the purpose of acquiring or renting small pieces of property for extending our ground around our barracks, and more particularly for extensions to rifle ranges. In some years it is not expended at all, but from time to time small pieces of property are acquired at convenient points for drill at local1 headquarters or for the extension of rifle ranges.
Transport and freight, $3'0O,(K>O.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a large increase of $275,000. Is this increase necessary over the expenditure of last year?


Hugh Guthrie: The reason for that is
that last year there were no camps. I am *satisfied that the expenditure will be eon-(Siderably under the Estimate this year because our camps are going to be very small. This Estimate is put in on' the basis of having the old established military camps, but we are not going to have them this year, so I estimate there will be a considerable saving in this item.
Warlike stores, $400,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an
increase in this item of $400,000. What is the necessity of that this year?


Hugh Guthrie: The reason is that last year everything under this head was charged) to Demobilization Vote. As a matter of fact, the pre-war vote was some $300,000 greater than this year's vote. Last year a considerable amount w.as spent on the same item, hut the whole of last year's amount was spent out of Demobilization Vote. The items which make up the amount are: Artillery stores, $163,500; engineers' stores, $50,000; medical stores, $20,000; general, $456,825; total, $690,325. But that has been reduced by reason of the

fact that we are not going to have a full establishment either in the militia or in the permanent force. Therefore, we have reduced this item by $290,325, leaving it at $400,000, or $300,000 less than the pre-war vote. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of
what the minister has just said, these Estimates are thoroughly misleading. In some cases there is a comparison between this year and last year, and the minister says that the comparison is correct because both items have been paid out of the same appropriation. Now we come to another item anid the minister says that dast year the amount was paid out of the Demobilization Vote. There should have been something in the Estimates to indicate that some money had been taken from another source; otherwise the House and the country cannot but be completely misled as to the expenditure on military account last year. The same thing has been done in the case of the Naval Estimates,-there we found b.y comparison that apparently there was to be a saving over what had been spent last year. Then, to our surprise we learned that out of the Demobilization Vote other hundreds of thousands of dollars had been paid, which were not shown on the face of the statement brought down to Parliament. That is no way to treat either Parliament or the country in the matter of the public accounts.


Hugh Guthrie: As regards the Militia
Department I may say that it has given such full and complete reports that it might be expected that nobody who had time to peruse the reports could make any complaint on the subject. As my hon. friend knows, throughout the war special volumes have been issued from time to time showing the total expenditure and the itemized expenditure in regard to war and showing all the moneys which have been taken by the Militia Department from the Demobilization Vote. The last memorandum on the subject was laid on the table of the House about a .month ago. In addition to that there is the annual report of the Militia Council which shows the aggregate vote, but the de-
10 p.m. tailed statement of all our expenditures chargeable to da-mobilization is fully set forth in most complete form, so that any one who desires to examine it will have the fullest opportunity of doing so, and it is interesting reading as well. I do not think, as regards the Militia Department, there can be much obfMr. <5uthrie.]
lection to the way in which the account has been kept. East year was treated for the purpose of demobilization as a war year, and expenditure which took place t nder this head was treated as a war expenditure and was charged to demobilization. 'This year it has been thought better to charge it to the Militia Department appropriation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend not honestly believe that these Estimates, as prepared and presented to Parliament, are misleading to one who is not familiar with the method of bookkeeping the department has adopted? Here is a statement giving details for the year 1913-14; then there is a statement for the year, 1920-21; then there is a statement for the year 1919-20, and at the end there is shown an increase or a decrease. Any one looking at the statement would think it .means what it purports to mean. If there has been this other method of accounting, there should be something to indicate that.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want to condemn the form in which the Estimates have been placed before the House because I am not responsible for the form, neither is my department. I do not think it is misleading. It would not be misleading with an explanation that it had been spent last year out of Demobilization Appropriation. No hon. member has been misled. Before the Militia Estimates were discussed at all, I took particular occasion to point out to the House apparent discrepancies in order that there might be no misleading, and I specially mentioned the various subjects in which there was no expenditure last year and gave information to the House where any special expenditures was charged last year.
Demobilization, $38,463,400.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is an enormous vote for demobilization purposes this year. I think I drew the attention of the Government early in the session to the circumstance that we would like to have a very detailed statement of this par'icular vote. I hope the minister has it and that he will give it to the House.


Hugh Guthrie: Of Demobilization Vote as proposed by these Estimates the following are the items:	Pay	and
allowances, $1,636,360; dependents' allowances; $459,540; adjustments, .pay and allowances and working .pay, $4,000,000; adjustments, separation allowances, $250,000; war service gratuities, $8,500,000; food

and subsistence, $210,000; drugs and surgical instruments, $50,000; engineer services, $550,000; civilian employees, $1,800,000; transport and travelling, land, $500,000; transport and travelling, ocean, $9,000,000; sundries, $2,000,000. The total of the items I have just read would toe $29,505,900. It was considered, however, that we would get through with $1,000,000 less, so we have deducted that amount. In addition, there is the amount of $9,745,000 for overseas demobilization or services overseas. The details of that expenditure are as follows: Overseas pay and allowances, $62,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Pay and allowances for whom?


Hugh Guthrie: For those men yet overseas, who have not yet been demobilized. I gave the exact figures to the House at a former meeting of the committee, but I can give them again in a few minutes. We have still overseas a small number of men, daily becoming less.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are they in
hospital?


Hugh Guthrie: No, We have also a
detachment of men who were on the Overseas Air Force, which has now been transferred to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and is now under the control of the Overseas Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the minister explain this item of $2,000,000 for sundries?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, in a moment. It should be $1,000,000 for sundries, as we have deducted $1,000,000. When we were making up the amount we estimated $29,505,900 as the total of the items I read a moment ago, but my hon. friend will see the amount is placed in the Estimates as $28,505 900 We deducted $1,000,000 from the items for sundries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is covered by sundries?


Hugh Guthrie: May I continue to give the details of the Overseas Demobilization vote? They are as follows: Pay and allowances, $62,000; separation allowances, $8,000; food -and subsistence, billeting and rations, $25,000; rent, water, fuel and light, $15,000; ordnance services' $1,000,000; drugs and surgical instruments, $30,000; engineer services, $200,000; printing and stationery, $1,000,000; transport and travelling, by land, $250,000; telegrams, telephones, postage and sundries, $155,000; War Office general account, $7,000,000, making a total of $9,745,000. That is for overseas, and is properly accountable for by Overseas Minister, who we all regret is absent from the House owing to a serious illness.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister mentioned $8,000,000 for war service gratuity. Just what does he .mean by that?


Hugh Guthrie: It is to provide for the payment of the war service gratuity to Canadians who served in the Imperial army, as authorized by Order in Council-2389, dated December 1, 1919. It is estimated that there was on the 1st April, 1920, unpaid on this account about $8,000,000. There is a further $500,000 which is explained by the fact that there will also be many adjustments of the war service gratuity chiefly in respect to officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who were discharged prior to December 11, 1919, and from whom applications have not yet been received. Applications are still coming in, not very rapidly, but every day we have some from men who were discharged prior to the armistice,, and who, under the terms of the Order in Council, may be entitled to the gratuity. Some of them are not, but many of them are. As nearly as we can estimate, it will take $500,000 to pay the gratuity to these men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister set a date when these expenditures on demobilization are likely to cease?


Hugh Guthrie: It is hoped by the close of the present year that all demobilization expenditure, so far as the Militia Department is concerned, will cease. We have not a great deal of expenditure other than what is estimated at the present moment. We have only two hospitals in existence, the Orthopaedic Hospital at Toronto, where special treatment is given to very difficult cases, and one in Winnipeg. It is hoped that within a reasonable time, probably three or four months, both of these hospitals will be completely closed. Then there is a small class of expenditure that has been going on for some time, particularly in regard to the Records Branch. It may be interesting to the House to know that even at this long distance of time since the armistice, the department is daily receiving an average of 3,500 letters. These communications require answers that involve a great deal of research work, chiefly among the records. ^ They are in regard to innumerable subjects; for instance, pay and allowance, gratuities, graves, decorations, medals and the like. It will be necessary,
I imagine, for some considerable time to

come, to maintain a much greater civil staff in connection with the Militia Department than we ever dreamt of in pre-war years. But the demobilization vote, as purely and simply a demobilization vote, will, I think, finish during the present year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I can understand that large amounts should still be spent on demobilization in Canada, but I fail to understand why one year and five months after the armistice has been signed Canada should expend $9,000,000 for services over-iseas. Are there any Canadian troops on the Continent in the occupied regions, or are all these Canadian troops confined to Great Britain? And may I ask what they are doing?


Hugh Guthrie: I gave the committee at an earlier stage the exact number of men we still have overseas. I think it is only 200 or 300 men now. We are cutting down the number just as rapidly as we can, and in the near future our establishment of soldiers overseas will be completely _ demobilized, probably within six weeks' time. It must be remembered that the present item represents our settlement with the War Office in regard to a great many outstanding accounts, especially the per capita charge of nine shillings per man for the maintenance of troops. The amount now asked for overseas demobilization includes all these outstanding items. I regret that I have not the fullest personal knowledge of the transactions, They were conducted entirely by the overseas minister. I have the detail's of the expenditure if the committee should desire them but I have not a personal knowledge of the transactions. I assume that probably to-day, if we adjourn to-morrow, the Overseas Ministry will come to an end.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman
has made mention of the Overseas Minister. Have we still such an official? Does Sir Edward Kemp still bold the office of Overseas Minister?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, under the statute the office was created for the war and was to come to an end at the close of the session after the war. I assume that, to-day being the last day of the session, to-morrow he will no longer be Overseas Minister. I may say however that Sir Edward Kemp has written to me from his sick bed that he and his assistants have been engaged in preparing >a full and complete report in connection with that ministry which he hopes to submit in the course of a few weeks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon. friend undertake tol say that the moneys which we are voting now for demobilization purposes will be confined to the particular classes that he has mentioned and that no part will be used to supplement appropriations that have already been voted in connection with -other items in the Estimates?


Hugh Guthrie: I can assure my hon. friend that the money will be expended strictly in -accordance with the items which I have given. The Auditor General will see to that. AM the expenditure for demobilization is made under Order in Council; it is not within the power of any minister to m-ake it. The details of all such expenditure have first bo be approved by the deputy minister, then (submitted to council, authorized by Order in Council and finally passed by the Auditor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with other expenditures my horn, friend has stated that certain items were not included in last year's expenditure because they had been paid out of the demobilization vote. I hope he will not again -come before the House and -say that -something that does not appear in this item has been paid -out of the demobilization vote.
Mr. GUTHRIE-: The distinction is that the expenditures to which my hon. friend refers were expenditures whi-ch directly affected the expeditionary force as distinct from the militia. Now the Canadian Expeditionary Force is almost entirely -demobilized and within a few months it will be entirely demobilized so that the vote will naturally be chargeable to militia. Last year we had a very considerable Canadian Expeditionary Force and a great many consequential charges. We had a tremendous amount of repairs to do on buildings which we had changed and more or less injured. All of these had to be restored before they were handed back. This expenditure had to be charged to demobilization.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a point that I do not press on the minister so much as on the ministry, but >1 must again protest against bringing down this particular item at this hour and asking Parliament to. vote $38,000,000 after about fifteen minutes' discussion. It is not fair to the country or Parliament that the Government should -so arrange its business that no opportunity shall be given for the careful consideration of these very large expenditures.


Hugh Guthrie: This item is really made up ot fixed charges and I think it is pretty nearly all -authorized by special Acts of this House.
Mr. MACKENZIE. KING: Which oif these expenditures are especially authorized by an Act of this House?


Hugh Guthrie: That item respecting
gratuities, for instance, was all incorporated in an Act of this House last session after receiving the report of the Pension *Cbmmissioners. Bill No. 10 of last year authorized an expenditure of $8,500,000 and this is to provide for the expenditure this . year. There was $2,500,000 provided for in the Bill which passed this House with respect to gratuities and pensions as a result of thfe report of the Committee on Pensions. When this Estimate was made up we did not know what action the committee would take. But we did know that there were certain questions1 regarding pension and gratuity which would be brought to the attention of the House and in this item of demobilization there is approximately $2,500,000, or, to be precise, $2,100,000. It has been deducted from the amount which was recommended by the Pension Committee in this session and which the Minister of Finance would have -appropriated for that purpose. His vote in regard to pensions, on the findings, would have been $2,100,000 greater had it not been for the demobilization vote.
Militia and Defence-Civil Pensions-
Life pension to Robert A. Allen, from April 16, 1919 to March 31,
1920, at $269.52 per annum, and the difference between that rate and $120.12 per annum from April 16,
1918 to April 15, 1919	$407 87
Life pension to Ronald Morrison.. 330 00
Life pension to Walter Pettipas.. ..	515 90


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the explanation of these pensions?


Hugh Guthrie: These are pensions
granted for injuries received and the amount in each case is based upon what the individual would have received under the Workmen's Compensation law in force in each province.
Air Service, $250 000.


Mr. DENIS:: What is this item for?


Hugh Guthrie: This item is a part of the proposed expenditure for the present year and the supplementary item shows really the Main Estimates for that purpose; they had not (been thoroughly discussed or prepared when the first Estimates were
brought down. .If the committee will turn to the Supplementary Estimates, page 13. they iwill see a summary of the proposed *expenditure in regard to the Air Board. Perhaps I might toe (permitted, in a few words, to point out what the scope of the .proposed operations of the board will be for the current year.
As the committee is aware, last year iwe passed an Act to establish an Air Board. It so happens that we have in Canada about twelve thousand of the most highly trained military air men, of whom we know, that are to he found in the would. It is not proposed to (begin by providing for anything like that number. A paper establishment has been (authorized up to 5,000 men including all ranks. The proposal is briefly toi recruit, as far as possible, the trained air men (that are to be found in Canada to-day for the purpose of retaining their interest in, and sympathy with the work in case in the future it may develop for commercial, scientific or other purposes as well as for military operations. I may say in the first place ithat we have received from Great Britain a very extensive aeroplane outfit-consisting of aeroplanes, seaplanes and the necessary additional craft- the value of which, I think, amounts to between five and .six million dollars. All that equipment is now ait Borden which, as the committee knows, is .a military training ground. The equipment has been assembled and set up there. In addition to that we are aoquiring^as a matter of fact we have acquired or set apart-.certain of our own property at Vancouver, British Columbia, as an air station; another property at a place called Morley in the province of Alberta; and another place somewhere in the province of Quebec at or near Lake St. John. These are the only stations which, at ithe present time, we propose to establish, and in addition .a small experimental station at Rockliffe in the city of Ottawa. All we need is to give a limited training to a limited number of air men in Canada to keep their hands and their eyes in. We propose doing this by means of provincial associa't'iotas. In each province of the Dominion the Lieutenant Governor has undertaken to form a provincial association and to enlist as many air linen as he can in the service. We propose to give these men .a- limited training each year, taking them to one of our .training stations there to- give them one month's flying amounting to, I think, two hours (a day per iman. The cost of fly-

ing is considerable, I understand it is about $6 am hour per roan, so it is only proposed to give each man one month's training of two hours' flying per day, .and. for. the present year we propose to limit that to a'bouit seventeen hundred men. The objects to be attained by the Air Board are not by any means all military. The expenditure in this item would be about $800,000 'for scientific, for exploration, and for commercial purposes. We .think the expenditure justified. We are seeking to make arrangements with the various provinces of Canada, upon some basis satisfactory to both parties, in order to carry out our operations in the more remote parts of itbe Dominion. We have succeeded so far in making an agreement with only one province-the progressive province of Quebec I am glad to say. The Government of that province has entered into an arrangement with ns-on the basis of fifty-fifty so far as expense is concerned-.for the establishment olf a station in some part of Northern Quebec, near Lake St. John, for the purpose of exploration and scientific work in that province. We -hope for great results from this undertaking. As yet it is in its infancy, we do not know iwhat it may produce, but it is believed that the service will be exceedingly valuable for these purposes. We do not propose to enter into commercial flying as a Government undertaking, but we do propose to supervise all flying of that kind and all air routes. We propose to. license pilots, to license aircraft, to lay out routes, and to provide the rules .and regulations. At the present time we are laying out an air route between North Bay and Winnipeg. The only thing that is necessary in regard to that, I am informed, is to see that we get suitable landing stations, and we are locating these upon Crown lands which will involve no expense. Between Winnipeg and Calgary it is not necessary to. have any landing place as one can practically land almost anywhere throughout that flight; but from Calgary on to Vancouver it will be necessary to provide landing places, and I believe Suitable sites are being located throughout the mountains. Then from Ottawa eastward to the .sea, it is also proposed to lay out flying routes. This is a modern development and we intend to keep up with other nations, and particularly with the United States and with Great Britain. We must do something 'for the air service, and more particularly 'as we have in Canada .perhaps the highest trained body o.f air 
[DOT] men that exists anywhere in the world to-day.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Under what conditions was the equipment, said by .the minister to be worth five to six million dollars, acquired from Great Britain?


Hugh Guthrie: There were no conditions. It iwas a free gift to Canada for the purpose of encouraging us in the pursuit of operations in the air.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At this point I would like to emphasize what was said with regard to the naval expenditures, that if the Government was even considering these large outlays they ought to have submitted them in the Main and not in the Supplementary Estimates. It is not treating Parliament or the country fairly to put an item ini the Main Estimates of something like $250,000 for the Air Service and then in the last two or three days of the session bring down a Supplementary item of $1,650,000. This is not a matter of chance with the Government, it is a matter of habit- of deliberate design. It has been, done in regard to the Air 'Service, it has been done in regard to the Militia Service, it has been done in regard to the Naval Service. It is a course of proceeding that is highly objectionable and detrimental to the public interest. I think the Government is to be very severely censured for treating Parliament and the country in this way.


Hugh Guthrie: I can plead an excuse
for the Air Service. We did not know until the first week in May what would be necessary, and it was only about that time that I had the honour of becoming Chairman of the Air Board. It was originally thought that we could do this year's preliminary work with $250,000. Then the airships were forwarded, and when they reached Canada they had to be set up, a staff employed, and operations begun. So far as we are able to see, the programme in the Supplementary Estimates will be the programme for the year. But it would have been impossible before April to have settled upon this plan or to have brought down the Estimates in the House. Consequently I do not think the Air Board can be blamed in this respect.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Had the Government
no idea when these airships would arrive?


Hugh Guthrie: I think some department of the Government must have had information when they would arrive because on their arrival they were forwarded to Borden and set- up. The arrangements

were all made ahead of the receipt of the airships.


Andrew Ross McMaster: When was it decided
to accept these airships? Apparently their acceptance is going to impose upon this country a very substantial expenditure.


Mr. BUTTS:: And get you up in the air?
Mr. MdMASTEK: May I say that there is no necessity to get this Government or its supporters up in the air; they are there at present. If they would only come down to earth, stand on the basis of real facts, and look the circumstances in the face, we would not find them in the last days of the session bringing down Estimates running into millions of dollars. But that is 'by the way. I would respectfully submit to this committee that the acceptance of a gift may entail very heavy responsibilities on the donee, I am very much afraid that the Government has accepted these airships without, so far as I know, taking the Canadian people into its confidence, and now it finds itself at this late hour of the session obliged to come before the House to meet very heavy obligations indeed. It was a splendid thing to have the young manhood of Canada so distinguish themselves in the air at the front, but it would be a sad thing if, in order to keep these young men in the condition of skill Which they attained at the front, we should be obliged to incur expenses which the country is really unable to bear. It is not a question, to my mind, for this Government to decide what is desirable. A great number of things may be desirable, if we can afford them. But I do protest against incurring expenditures of millions of dollars and then bringing the matter before us onlv at. tibia late date.


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that when the Bill passed the House last year to establish the Air Board, not only for civil but for military flying, that the House must have considered that we would have some operation under that Act.. In answer to my hon. friend's question, I do not think it was determined until the early part of this year to accept this gift from the British Government. But I do know that from the beginning of April until the middle of June these air craft have been arriving in Canada, and we have to take care of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It appears that the British Government has adopted the policy of getting rid of its surplus war material by presenting it to some of the Overseas Dominions in order to reduce the cost
of maintenance. Has our Government adopted any policy of that kind? Has there been any attempt to get rid of our surplus equipment? Or is the policy simply reversed and in this time of peace are we to take over and maintain gifts of surplus equipment?


Hugh Guthrie: This, I understand, is
all first-class equipment and up-to-date in every respect. II assume that the motives of the British Government in making this gift to Canada were absolutely proper. Our war material which we could not utilize has been disposed of to the best advantage by public tender and competition, and we have realized six or seven million dollars up to the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: have already gone very far at this session after the war is over, both on military expenditure proper and on naval expenditure. Now, are we going to launch the country on an expenditure for air preparation?


An Hon. MEMBER:: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree with my hon.
friend that we should not do it.


Ernest Lapointe: He is going to vote
for it, though.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For all I know at the
next session of Parliament the Government may bring 'down an Estimate of millions of dollars for underground' preparations! The war is over, and' the Government should put a stop to these expenditures. If we expend this year two million dollars, what will be asked! from Parliament next year? Because these expenditures will not be reduced, they will keep on increasing year after year. That is not practising economy as the Government is asked by the country be used for commercial, scientific, and exit is doing. I seriously object to granting this amount of almost $2,000,000 for aviation in 'Canada, and if any motion is made to reduce the vote to the extent of two-thirds I shall support it with pleasure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) has said will, I am *sure, appeal to every one as 'being entirely reasonable. So far as this air service can be used for comercial, scientific, and exploration purposes it should be fostered, but to enter this year, before the work of demobilization is completed, upon an air service for military purposes is the height [DOT]of absurdity, and I think that these Estimates ought to be reduced by the amount suggested. The amount first brought down In the Main Estimates for air service was 3250,000. Having granted that, it seems to me that we are giving the Government a pretty good sum with which to make experiments, and if we supplement it by voting 1850,000 for civil aviation, that surely is giving the Government all it should ask for at this time. But now we have item 536, a military appropriation for $800,000-nearly another 'million for this purpose. We can well afford to dispense with the military end of it this year, I think that wre should reduce the total vote for air service by $800,000. Possibly we can best -express our view in that regard by simply voting against the item of $800,000.
The Air Board-military appropriation

 grant to Provincial Air Force Associations, -etc., $800,000.

Item agreed to on division: Yeas, 46; nays, 26.
Demobilization-Department of Justice, $57,5 O'O.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain this item?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is to complete expenses in connection with carrying on the internment operations; carrying on the Military Service Act, and other incidental things.
Demobilization-'Department of Trade and Commerce, $105,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May we hear from the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce?


George Green Foster: The amount is required to cover the following: Sale of pig iron which still remains on hand, and- expenses, $.100,000; one substitute for an enlisted man, $1,200; unforeseen expenses, $3,800. If there are no unforeseen expenses, of course, this amount will not be spent.
Demobilization-Department of Secretary of State, $50,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the explanation, please?


Mr. SIFTON:: Expenses of censorship.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Although we are soon to prorogue, it would ibe helpful if one could hear what the minister says. What is this item for?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: For censorship.
Mr. MoMASTER: I did not catch that. Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am not leady to submit so soon. I want to know what this item as for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has explained the item.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I did not hear what he said.
Demobilization-Department of Immigration and 'Colonization-to provide for the repatriation oif soldiers' dependents, $250,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain?


Mr. CALDER:: This vote is required to pay the cost of repatriating dependents who are still in the British Isles. Last year the number of dependents returned was in the neighbourhood of 50,000, including the wives of soldiers and their children. The total cost to date has been $2,215,000. There are still some dependents in Great Britain;

just what their number is it would be very difficult to ascertain. This Estimate is to cover the amount required for tire return of dependents who still remain there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization-Public. Archives-to provide for the cleaning, repairing, transporting and distributing of war trophies throughout the Dominion, including $2,000 gratuity to Dr. A. G. Doughty, for services in connection with war trophies, $27,000.
William Foster Cockshutt: Is the distribution of war trophies made entirely by Dr. Doughty? What course should be pursued by the municipalities that wish to obtain their share of the war trophies that come to [DOT]Canada. Applications have been put in from time to time, and some muncipali-ties have received none while others are receiving some. I believe that there should be a fair distribution of the war trophies throughout the whole country; any municipality that desires them should have them to show to their citizens. That seems to me to be a fair proposition.
iMr. SIFTON: They are being distributed by a committee consisting of Dr. Doughty, Colonel Cruikshanks and Sir Edmund Walker.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I should like to say a few words with regard to these war trophies. In my constituency we had an unfortunate accident in connection with an exhibition of war trophies when a man was killed by a premature explosion, and I have been endeavouring to secure from the Government some gratuity or acknowledgment or compensation for his family. I should like io know if anything has been done in this connection. I understand Mr. Doughty has made some representations in favour of such a gratuity being granted.
Mr. iSIFTON: The matter mentioned by the hon. member is still under the consideration of the Government.
Civil Government-Department of Immigration and Colonization, salaries, $142,567.50 ; contingencies, $35,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there any additions to the staff?


James Alexander Calder: There are certain decreases and certain additions. As a matter of fact, there is, on the whole, an addition of ten to the staff. Those ten are minor clerks, and those clerkships are necessary owing to increased work in the department. While the number of immigrants coming to Canada has not been as
great as in pre-war years, there has been thrown upon the department work that we did not have in pre-war days. That is particularly true of work that is now required to be done under the new Naturalization Act. Before a naturalization certificate goes through, the necessary application is made to the department to ascertain just when and where the applicant arrived in Canada, and that also necessitates our keeping a very strict record of all applicants who enter Canada. In addition to that, a very large volume of work has been thrown upon the department, as a result of the war, necessitating a huge correspondence between the department and overseas on account of people residing here whose relatives are in foreign countries. This volume of correspondence has increased very [DOT]considerably in the last year.
Immigration and colonization-salaries of
agents and employees (outside service), $650,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: May we have some explanation about this expenditure?


James Alexander Calder: This covers salaries of our staffs in Canada, Great Britain, the European continent and the United States. We are asking for a smaller expenditure this year than last year, because we think we can get along with it. We did not expend the whole amount provided last session. Our expenditures in Canada are roughly divided into two classes. We have what are called our inland agencies, such as at Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria and other inland points where the administration of the immigration law is carried on. In addition to that, we have our boundary inspectors all along the border checking immigration coming in from the United States. If the hon. member wishes particulars as to those items, I can give them to him. The total salary list in Great Britain and Europe is $93,000, and in the United States, $67,000. This is an item which, I presume, has been discussed in this House every session.


Ernest Lapointe: How many immigrants came into Canada during the last fiscal year?


James Alexander Calder: The number is 117,336, including 59,603 from Great Britain, 49,656 from the United States and 8,077 from all other countries. I will give a few statistics to the committee to show the trend of immigration during the last ten years. During the five years prior to the war our aver-

age immigration was 332,285 per annum. Of that immigration 36.96 per cent 11 p.m. was from Great Britain, 36.44 per cent from the United States, and 26.60 per cent from other countries. Taking the five war years, the total immigration was 405,476, or an average of 81,000 during each of those five years, as compared with 332,285 .for each of the five years prior to the war. During the war period our British immigration was only 18 per cent df the total, our United States, immigration 66 per cent and our immigration from other countries 15 per cent. One would readily realize conditions which 'brought about that state of affairs. It is interesting to note that last year, the first yeai after the war, our immigration has increased from 81,000 to 117,000 and of our immigration last year 50.80 per cent was British, as compared with only 18 per cent during the period of the war. Last year 42 per cent of our immigration was from the United States and only 6.88 per cent from other countries. Therefore, the great bulk of our immigration during last year came from Great Britain and the United States, and I am inclined to think that is a condition that is likely to prevail for another year or so.
Contingencies in Canadian, British and Foreign Agencies and general immigration expenses. $770,000.	_


Jean-Joseph Denis: I understand that this item and No. 55. salaries of agents, represents the expenditures we make to bring immigrants to Canada. Am I right?


James Alexander Calder: Yes
Exhibitions, $80,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What has Canada been getting for these expenditures on exhibitions for the last three or four years? I am not aware that Canada has participated in any exhibition in that time.


James Alexander Calder: That scarcely represents
the situation. Previously, fairly large items were voted by Parliament for some of the larger expositions held throughout the world, at Paris, for instance, Brussels, and San Francisco. These cost very large sums of money, running in some cases into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The class of exlribition work carried on under this vote is more in the nature ot small exhibits in Great Britain and in the United States. For instance, we have three small exhibits- at three of the most important centres in the United States. We have one small one at the stock yards in Chicago, another in St. Paul, a.nd the third is being 
established at Kansas city. These three, while they are good exhibits, well located so that a very large number of people .see them, are very small and comparatively inexpensive, because the officials of the department are very expert in this work and have succeeded in making a verv good exhibit, from the standpoint of immigration, at a comparatively small expenditure. In addition, we showed exhibits last year at state and county fairs in the United States at no less than twenty-seven points. These exhibits are usually shown in a tent or in one of the county fair buildings. Considering the volume of work done and the very good results we get, I consider the cost is very reasonable. In Great Britain, where they have no state and county fairs as we have on this continent, we have travelling exhibits that attend daily fairs over there These exhibits are shown in tents provided for the purpose. Our experts who have been engaged on this work for a good manv years have gathered together some verv splendid material for these small exhibits, and I think we are securing very good results.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Who is the present Canadian Commissioner


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Tolmie.


Jean-Joseph Denis: To what influence or recommendation is his appointment due?


James Alexander Calder: 
James Alexander Calder: I must take very serious objection to the statement my hon. ifriend has just made. If he wishes to leave the impression upon the committee that it was through favoritism or through any influence I exercised on the commission that Mr. Tolmie secured his appointment, if that is his idea, I want to tell him most emphatically he is very much mistaken.
If he has any charge to make against any official of the department in so far as using undue influence with the commission is concerned in reference to the appointment of Mr. Tolmie, I think he should state so before the committee.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My charge-and I shall [DOT] make it next session if I do not now, because I do not want to delay the House unduly at this stage-is that many appointments are being made through the commission -which is only acting as a registry office, upon the recommendations of different departments. On the recommendation so made the commission makes the appointment. I am not saying this is so in the particular case of Mr. Tolmie, [DOT]and I a.m not criticising his appointment, but I submit that the commission has nothing to do with these appointments, especially to the higher positions, and that patronage is stilfl rampant.
Relief of distressed Canadians, $6,000.


Mr. PEDLOW:: It would be interesting for the committee to know just how this amount, though small in comparison with other items passed this evening, is administered. I see a similar item was passed last year.


James Alexander Calder: This is an item that has been carried in the Estimates for a great many years. Sometimes Canadians abroad become stranded, .and an appeal is made to the Government to do something for them. We have had Canadians stranded, for instance, down in the Argentine, as well as some cases in Italy and quite a number in Great Britain. This vote is -for the purpose of providing relief to Canadians who are stranded -abroad. It is very seldom that the expenditure reaches the amount asked for here. The last time I looked into it we expended something like $1,000.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much was spent for this purpose last year?


James Alexander Calder: I have not the details with me, but I would imagine it was a small amount.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $500,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This item calls for some explanation. There was only $1,000 voted last year.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: This item, and another in the Supplementary Estimates of $400,000, is for tih-e taking of the vote this fail in connection with the Canada Temperance Act. Applications have been received from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia and the Yukon. It is practically a general election that is to be held in connection with it. The whole amount is $900,000.
To provide for purchase of 6-50 copies of the Parliamentary Guide, $1,950?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Amongst whom are these
650 -copies of the Parliamentary Guide distributed?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: There is quite a large distribution amongst offices as well as to the Senate and the House of Commons.
Mr. DENI'S: The Senate and the House of Commons represent hardly more than 300 copies. Where did the other copies go?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: To libraries, departments
and ministers.
To provide for the expenses under the Canada Temperance Act; further amount required $456,000.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That i-s the additional item I referred to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion fro-m the public in some of the provinces as to whether they are for or against the prohibition of the -manufacture, importation, and consumption of intoxicating liquors-?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: It is to carry out whatever the Act that was passed last year calls for.
The Editorial Committee-to provide for the cost of printing, etc., $1,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This relates to a matter [DOT]upon which I spoke earlier in the day. I [DOT]asked the Prime Minister that a French member should be added to the committee. -The administration of that branch of the service, I understand, is under the direction of my hon. friend and I would ask him whether he concurs in the Prime Minister's statement upon this question?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I will do the best I can
to carry ou-t whatever promise the Prime Minister mad-e.


Donald Sutherland: I would like some explanation with regard to this item.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I may say there is a large territory in the neighbourhood of Swift Current were farming has been carried on under siemi-arid conditions. This runs for a number of miles, east and west of Swift [DOT]Current, down to the boundary line.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To the American desert?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is on the Canadian side, [DOT]and it is most important that we establish [DOT]an experimental station at that point so ,as to assist the farmers, and to fully inform [DOT]them as to the best methods of farming under the conditions prevailing in that particular district.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not that territory
known as the prolongation of the American desert?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: In connection with this item I would like, for a moment or [DOT]two, to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that on. April 7th I had a notice of motion placed on the Order Paper which is still there. The debate on the motion was adjourned, and1 I did not have an opportunity of replying to the statements that were made by the minister and others on that occasion in connection with the [DOT]matter. I would like now for a few minutes [DOT]to direct the attention of the committee [DOT]to a statement which was then made in [DOT]regard to expenditure for experimental farms., to the effect that the outlay for this purpose in the province of Ontario was greater, in proportion to its population, than in any other province. I want to point out that in the province of Ontario, outside of the Central Experimental Farm, there are but two small stations, one at Kapuskasing up in the woods in the North [DOT]country, and a small tobacco station of 48 [DOT]acres at Harrow, so that the province does this work itself and pays for it, while the [DOT]Dominion Government are providing for [DOT]all the other provinces. That is an absolutely unfair and unjust policy to pursue [DOT]towards Ontario. Now, there is this item in the Supplementary Estimates for another experimental station in the province of Saskatchewan although there are more experimental farms in that province to-day than there are in the province of Ontario. The statement was made that $409,979 was

expended for experimental farms in Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: What about Ottawa?


Donald Sutherland: The Central Farm at Ottawa serves the whole of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is in Ontario.


Donald Sutherland: It serves the province of Quebec just as much as it does the province of Ontario. Its location shows that it is of more service to Quebec than it is to Ontario. However, the operations of that farm are not directed towards serving any particular province but are intended to serve the whole Dominion. When first established it served the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. To-day a very large proportion of that expenditure is similar to the expenditure that is annually voted for the beautification of the Capital which amounts to about $160,000 a year. The Central Farm is one of the beauty spots of Ottawa to which people are taken when [DOT]they visit the Capital. There are twenty-four experimental farms in the Dominion. Three of these are located in the province of Saskatchewan, in which there are also fourteen demonstration farms, whereas there is not one demonstration farm in the province of Ontario, and we are now asked to vote this sum to establish another. There are also thirteen located in the province of Quebec, and yet we have not one in Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: Another case of Quebec domination.


Donald Sutherland: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friends are very clever in applauding when it suits their purpose, and some of them were just as clever in trying to shut off debate on this question when my motion was before the House on a previous occasion. Some of the same hon. gentlemen are now trying to create a diversion and prevent me making any further reference to this matter. I contend that it was unusual and unfair to permit the statement made regarding Ontario to go unchallenged upon that occasion, and now I want to point out that Ontario has been used unfairly. We contribute one half of the revenue of this Dominion. We have never yet taken exception to expenditure upon experimental farms in any other province, nor do I take exception to-night; and if it is necessary to have experimental farms in that district of Saskatchewan, I am in accord with that policy. But I take exception to the statements on Hansard, and I say again that the policy that has been pursued would have justified cutting out all expenditures of this nature and letting the Provincial Governments conduct this work for themselves where they have control of their own lands. It is a different matter where the Dominion Government controls the natural resources of the province. But there is no justification in the old provinces, where conditions are almost identical, that one province should be discriminated against and another province should be shown favours, as has been the case in the past.
I have in my hand a publication issued by the Department of Agriculture, which will be found in nearly every bank in the rural districts, and in which the location of these farms is shown with an invitation to apply to the director of the nearest experimental farm for any information desired. You will find in the offices of the agents in the Old Land any quantity of literature that the prospective immigrant is anxious to secure, and it is largely compiled from information obtained from the experimental farms. Yet there is practically no information of that kind available regarding the major part of Ontario, except the eastern part. The effect of this on immigration is much greater than most people realize, and I say that this circular which is being distributed in this way con-
456i>
taining information regarding the experimental farms is not fair to Ontario now that immigration is beginning again. Ais this map showing the location of all these farms, will bear out, there is a group of eight or nine of these farms to the east of Ottawa at about the same distance from Ottawa as the little tobacco farm we have in the county of Essex. You would almost think from this pamphlet that Ontario was devoted to growing tobacco and nothing else. In the past we have had to submit to a good deal of discrimination against Ontario by the immigration authorities^ and it looks to me as though that policy was going to be continued in view of the circulars that are being distributed all over the country to-day.
I feel that I should apologize to the House for taking up time at this late day- and now-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: -but if it was not for the methods that have been adopted I would not have done so.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. gentleman help us to defeat a government that is so unfair to Ontario?


Donald Sutherland: I have no doubt that if my hon. friend nad another opportunity he would do Ontario an even greater injustice than past Governments have done.


Ernest Lapointe: It could not be worse.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think my hon. friend is misjudging the hon. member for Quebec East. Ontario has no better friend than the hon. member for Quebec East, with the possible exception of myself.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We will take item 463
next.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: That item has been passed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: These items pass so quickly that the minister himself does not know that they are passed. He has just been made aware by the chairman that an item of $350,000 for his department has been passed, and he did not know about it. That is a' demonstration to the committee and to tlie country of what kind of work we are doing here.
Miscellaneous-grant	to national Dairy
Council, $3,000.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Has anything been decided with regard to the capacity of the potato bag, concerning which representations have been made to the minister? I

understand that many requests have come to Ottawa during the last few years that the standard potato bag be made to contain eighty pounds instead of ninety pounds. The present 90-pound bag is not one of convenient .size. Ninety pounds cannot be put in a flour bag, and as bags are expensive it is desired that the weight should be reduced to eighty pounds.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: A delegation of men interested in the potato business, farmers and dealers, from Montreal, waited on me a short time ago. This matter was discussed and it was decided that we should examine into the advisability of having potatoes sold by weight and that legislation to that effect would probably be brought down at the next session.
Oivil Government-Department of Marine, salaries, etc., $290,810.


William Stevens Fielding: Has the attention of
the Minister of Marine been directed to the position of the young gentlemen who have been sent out from our naval colleges and are now serving in Europe? It has been represented to me that the pay of these young gentlemen is very small indeed. It may be said that the pay of the English young men is even lower than that of the Canadians. But we have this to remember that, in most cases, the young Englishmen who go into the navy are sons of wealthy people and the pay they receive is not a very serious consideration, while the young Canadians who enter that service are, as a rule, sons of men who are not wealthy, and if they do not get a reasonable rate of pay, they cannot remain in the service. It has been represented to me, not by the young gentlemen themselves, but by some friends of theirs, that the pay is inadequate, and that some of these young gentlemen have great difficulty in remaining in the service. I only desire to draw the attention of the minister to this matter to see if anything can be done.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The hem. gentteman is quite correct. The rate of pay for young naval officers and other ratings has been too low; but we have recently revised the scale, and at the present time they are drawing a good deal higher rate of pay than they formerly did. I might also state that Canadian officers who are in the British Navy are on the Canadian naval strength and paid by the Canadian Government. [DOT]
Civil government-Office of the Conservation Commission, salaries, $43,450.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is chairman of the commission now?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Senator Edwards is acting chairman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But who is going to be chairman?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No decision has yet been reached as regards that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would suggest that Senator Edwards be made permanent chairman.
Legislation-House of Commons, $477,516.25.
iMr. LAPOINTE: Has the report of the classification of the employees of the House of Commons been tabled? We wanit to know what salaries we are voting for the various officials and employees of the House of Commons.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the absence of the report from the Civil Service Commission, the only thing which could be done was to prepare the Estimate on the basis of last year with the statutory increases. The hon. gentleman has asked if the classification has been sent up from the Civil Service Commission, It has not, and I rather gather from a communication which I received from the Civil Service Commission yesterday that it would be impossible to get it ready to-day.
Mr. LAPOINTE.: I know His Honour the Speaker is doing his best to haVe this matter properly adjusted. On the other hand I do not think it is fair to ask us to vote this appropriation for the salaries of the whole staff of the House of Commons without knowing what the various sa!aries are.


Jacques Bureau: As my hon. friend has said, we know the Speaker has done his best and has worked hard to see that those v ho approached him about the classification of officers of the House of Commons should be satisfied. The report was to be tabled. This is an important matter, because this is the only item wherein there are duplicate offices with an equal standing. The interest I take in this is to know what classification the Civil Service Commission have made, and if the Civil Ser-
12 m. vice Commission are there to do the work and cannot do it, we shall make a mistake if we pass the item now. We have heard it said in the cor-ridois here by parties who are not civil servants, but who are supposed to know, that there were certain, not classifications,
'	290
but apportionments made of salaries where the deputy chief or the under-employee was getting more than his chief. The Civil Service Commission ought not to do that sort of thing. If you want a chief'to have authority, he must have the salary which goes with the position, because positions after all are appreciated according to the salary which is paid to the man who occupies the position. I want it distinctly understood that I do not wish to blame the Speaker at all. I know he has put forth every effort; but if the Civil Service Commission cannot do their duties and cannot answer to Parliament, I for one am leady to censure the Civil Service Cbm-mission or to vote it out of business.


Peter McGibbon: Let us all vote it out of business.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is it to be understood that this House is of opinion that two officials of this House who, under the new classification, enjoy the same status, will receive the same salary?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is directing his question to me or not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: To anybody. To the party who should answer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is only necessary to put the question to have it answered properly. There can be only one answer to it: there ought to be equal pay for equal service. Pefhaps I might say generally, with regard to this question of classification, that the Civil Service Commission must assume responsibility for such classification as they prepare for the officers of the House. After they have done so and presented it to the House, it is for the House to determine whether they will or will not agree to it. In the absence of the classification, there was no other alternative ifor the officers of the House in preparing the Estimate than to put it upon the basis of last year with the statutory increases. While I am on my feet, I should like to say just one word of tribute to the services of a most efficient officer of the House who took superannuation-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the Speaker
leaves the subject: I understand the classification was sent to the Speaker by the , Civil Service Commission and it was returned to the commission. Will it come back during the sitting, or is it abandoned?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I stated to the House on the Orders of the Day that a ten-



tative scheme of classification was submitted to me. I have read it. I returned it to the Civil Service Commission with a letter explaining the view which I expressed to the House to-day. I have not a copy of the letter which I wrote to the commission, hut it was in terms following the idea which I gave to t'he House to-day, namely that I could not and would not assume responsibility for the classification when the Civil Service Commission were charged with that duty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps I am very dense, but the matter is not quite clear to me yet. I understand that the Civil Service Commission sent to His Honour the Speaker a report about the classification of the employees -of the House of Commons.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was not a complete report. It only purported, according to the letter which accompanied it, to be a tentative classification.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the reason for the commission sending a tentative classification to his Honour?


Jacques Bureau: Because they do not understand their business.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not saying that. They made a classification and sent it to his Honour the Speaker. Was his Honour asking the commission to review that classification before it was finally passed?
M. SPEAKER: The view I took was this: If there was any object in sending it to me at all, it was that I should pass upon it. I took the ground that if I was to pass upon it and assume responsibility for it, I should have the authority that went with that responsibility. Not having, that authority, I refused to pass upon it. It is a matter now for the Civil Service Commission, and their work is to be reviewed by the House of Commons. I do not think in justice to myself and the duties of my office I could take any other stand.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Under the present statute is it competent for the House to revise so far as salaries are concerned, a classification of the officials of the House made by the commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, their classification is subject to review by the House of Commons. The House must concur in it.


Jacques Bureau: Here is an extraordinary situation. There has been some parleying about these positions. It has been said that the organization has been submitted to the

Civil Service Commission. Now I understand that by statute the Civil Service Commission is to classify these positions and determine the salaries that shall be attached thereto. Am I right?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is their duty under the statute. Now either they do not understand their duty or they refuse to perform it. If it is their duty to make this classification, it ought to have been laid on the table of the House of Commons, so that if we are to ratify the classification we would know what we were ratifying. I have not read the statute recently, and I am not positive just what obligation in this respect is imposed upon the commission, but if they think it is not their duty to; make this classification of their own re-f sponsibility, but merely to ^submit it to the Speaker for his approval and they want the responsibility to rest with him, I for one am quite willing to vote that it does rest with the Speaker. I do not think' we ought to be the toys or playthings of the commission. I do not think it is fair for any body of intelligent men who have any respect for Parliament, to say " Gentlemen, trust us. Approve things we have not submitted to you. Approve of our classification and everything will be all right."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It must be understood that in passing this vote we are not in anyway ratifying any classification by the commission, because, as already pointed out, these Estimates were prepared upon the basis of last year, plus the statutory increases. In no way do we commit ourselves, by passing this item, to any classification made by the commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but the commission sent its classification to his Honour, because they considered his Honour as the minister in charge of the department of the House of Commons. The House of Commons, so far as its employees are concerned, is considered as a department and the Speaker as the minister of that department. Now I understand that a report was sent by the commission to his Honour for his approval, just as the commission sends reports to the heads of other departments. That is where I differ perhaps from his Honour. I say that having received this report on classification from the commission, his Honour should have laid the report on the table for the House to concur in it or dissent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman is in error. What was- submitted was

an unsigned tentative copy of a proposed report. It was not such a document as could toe submitted to the House at all. If the House is to be placed in the position of practically classifying the servants of the House, as it would be under that proposed arrangement, we might just as well make a job of it. But the law distinctly says that the Civil Service Commission shall classify the officers of the House of Commons, and I for one-perhaps I am mistaken-refuse to assume responsibility where I am not clothed with the authority which ought'properly to go with responsibility. That is the position I take. I am not going to leave myself open to objections not only by hon. members of the House but toy the servants, of the House, when I have not the authority to remedy their grievances. I am not taking simply my own judgment on the matter. I took the precaution of consulting the Parliamentary Counsel. I was not afforded a great deal of time. The document was only placed in my 'hands at eight o'clock last night, and the House sat until three this morning, pnd I was in the Chamber almost continuously from eight until three. During the course of the evening, in such time as he had available, the Parliamentary Counsel took the matter under consideration, and he concurred in the yiew which 1 expressed to him at the time, and which I have given to the House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a clear intimation from the Civil Service Commission that they wish us to settle this question of classification so far as the officials of the House are concerned. That is evident from the fact that they have sent this tentative report and have sought the approval of the House. If the session was not going to end to-morrow, or even to-night, I' think it would be competent for us to pass immediately legislation in order .to take this classification into our own hands. Be that as it may, what is now the position of the officials of the House of Commons? How are they going to be paid during this fiscal year? That is the question. Are they going to be paid the salary they received last year plus their statutory increase, or will they receive the salary which is going to toe fixed in the new classification which should' toe toefore the House, tout which is not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They will be paid, as a minimum, the old salary plus the statutory increase, and if the re-classification 290J
increases the pay of some officers of the staff, as I have no doubt it will, those affected will be paid the increase due. The Act provides that if the classification is not ready in. time to toe ratified by the House of Commons, it may toe ratified by the Governor in Council and it must toe brought * down to the House at the opening of the next session of Parliament.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems quite clear to me that the Speaker takes ground that is absolutely correct in every respect. I do not know whether this matter was intended to be dealt with by the House. If it was intended that the matter should be dealt with toy the House, it does seem to me peculiar that the commission would send something out, have it returned to them, and fail to return it here so that it could be dealt with. I think there is a good deal in the remarks one gentleman apposite made, that the Civil Service Commission may have in their mind the idea of making the members of this House appear ridiculous toefore the public. It is not a very flattering position for the members of the House to be placed in, and I certainly want to add my protest against the attitude assumed by the commission in refusing or failing to send to the House something that should have been sent.


Jacques Bureau: "Aux grands maux, les grands remedes." A desperate situation calls for a desperate remedy. Here is what I feel about this: Either the Civil Service know the law or they do not. If they know the law, they must carry it out. If they do not know the law, they have no business to be there; let them get out. I feel like moving that it toe referred back to the appropriation for the Civil Service Commission and that we hold it up till the commission see fit to respect members of Parliament and deposit their classification.
If these gentlemen think they can play with this House we should do something to show them that they cannot. Let them understand once and for all that they cannot fool the members of Parliament in the same way that they think they can fool others, and therefore I move that we revert to the Civil Service Commission item.
, The CHAIRMAN:	The hon. gentleman
could only revert to item 31 by unanimous consent and he cannot move that the item be rescinded because it is impossible for the House to vote twice on the same item.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It appears from what the Speaker has said that next session the

matter will be taken up and gone into. In the meantime we are voting these men the salaries that they have had before 'and I see no reason why the vote should not go through. On the condition that the Speaker has mentioned to-night that we are not accepting or establishing any report but that we are only voting the salaries and that the question will be taken up next session and dealt with properly, I think the item should be allowed to pass.


Jacques Bureau: How can we discuss it
without having their report?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We are voting the salaries and they will be paid. Otherwise they [DOT]cannot he paid, I suppose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hour is late but perhaps I may be permitted to say a word; I feel that not to do so would be an injustice to a venerable member of the staff of this House who has retired and is receiving , his superannuation. I refer to Mr. E. P. Hartney who for forty-eight years has been in the public service. A more efficient officer it would be impossible to find. He is known to the older members of the House and those who know him I am sure will join with me in expressing appreciation of his many years of valuable service to this country, and also in expressing the hope that he may be spared to live for many years in health and happiness to enjoy his superannuation allowance.


William Stevens Fielding: I join very heartily with his honour, the Speaker, in his appreciation of the services of this excellent officer. The older members of the House know him very well. In the very many years in which I was associated in a ministerial capacity with the work of the House I found Mr. Hartney a most highly qualified officer in every way. I am glad that the Speaker has paid this tribute to his good service and that in the name of the House of 'Commons he has extended our best wishes for his future happiness.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was he given leave of absence?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For how many months? Mr. SPEAKER: Six months.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I join in the praise bestowed upon Mr. Hartney. I have known him for twenty-five years and he has prepared many a Bill for me, as he has done for other members. Yet, I must say that we have not fQllowed the same course with another old employee of this Parliament. I

refer to Mr. DeCelles, C.M.G., one of the Librarians. While Mr. Griffin was given six months' leave of absence, Mr. DeCelles was granted three months' leave. He was in a perfect state of health and quite willing and able to do his work but he was forced to leave and give his position to a younger man. Mr. DeCelles has published one or two books every year during the last five or six years. He was quite hale and hearty, and I do not know why he should have been superannuated, but, being superannuated, it seems to^me that after forty-eight years service he should have been given the sanie leave of absence that was given to his colleague, Mr. Griffin, and to Mr. Hartney. _


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Appointment and superannuation are matters with which the Speaker has nothing to do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know, but I am
simply calling the attention of the Government to this matter.


Mr. HAY:: I would like to ask whether
any of these items cover the salaries or wages received by the messengers and members' stenographers. -


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, they do.


Thomas Hay: They have been complaining
bitterly against the wage which they are receiving, which, I understand, is $4 per day Many of them come from a great distance to attend the session and they have to pay their board.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an item in the Supplementary Estimates specifically fox the stenographers and perhaps the hon. gentleman would direct his remarks to that item.


Thomas Hay: And for the messengers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not for the messengers but for the stenographers.
(Mr. HAY: I referred to them particularly.


Ernest Lapointe: Before this item passes we must understand where we are and what the position of the employees of the House of Commons will be. We are voting this item on the basis of the old salary. We have voted in the Supplementary Estimates an item of $6,000,000 to cover increases in salaries due to the application of the reclassification of the Civil Service. I was .told that this item included the salaries of the employees of the House of Commons under the new reclassification and that all that will be required will be the concurrence

of the Governor in Council if the report is not tabled before the session is concluded. His Honour the' Speaker thinks that this concurrence will be given after the session. In that case I have nothing else to say except that I agree with the members of this House who have protested against the manner in which the House of Commons has been treated by the Civil Service Commission. We have asked, for weeks and weeks, that the report be tabled. They have' waited until the last day of the session, and when they have sent in their tentative report it hag been sent back to them. The House will prorogue without the members being Acquainted with what the report contains. We are voting these salaries tvith-out knowing what they are but the work will be done by the Governor in Council instead of by the House of Commons. We have been treated by the Civil Service Commission not only with scant courtesy but with downright contempt, and we must tell that to these gentlemen.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When, in the opinion of His Honour the Speaker, can we expect that the report will be laid before the Governor- in Council?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Any statement I might make would merely be a guess.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As soon as the House prorogues.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In the meantime the employees are paid their present salaries, and if the Civil Service Commission choose to submit this report for the approval of the Governor in Council in six months from now there is no remedy whatever.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the re-classification dates back to the first of April last year. In any case, it must be submitted to the Governor in Council and it must be brought down at the next session of Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: In the meantime it will take effect?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just one word. I have reached one of the officials of the commission and he said that at six o'clock the Speaker's message had not arrived. Apparently the letter did not reach the commission; ilt was mislaid in some way. I do not know hoiw the letter failed to reach the proper official but we shall try to get in touch with the commission to-morrow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The letter iwais signed late this afternoon and in the natural course
oif things would go down very late. I cannot give any further details, other than that the matter was attended to by my secretary.


Jacques Bureau: The commission ought to be brought to the bar df the House.
Harbours and Rivers, $4,400,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is ithe item the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lernieux) wished to speak on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
John Dowsley Reid: May I say to the hon. member that I obtained the answer to his question this afternoon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is fortunate. Will my hton. friend be good enough to read it?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The question was only put on the Order Paper seven or eight days ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The first question is: Has the Government granted a subsidy to the St. John DTy Dock and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.?


John Dowsley Reid: The answer to that question is: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The next question is: If so, when was such subsidy granted?


John Dowsley Reid: By agreement entered into on thie 11th of July, 1918, authorized by Order in Council of 22nd of June, 1918.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The third question is: What is the total amount of said subsidy?


John Dowsley Reid: Subsidy is to be paid half yearly at the rate of 4J per cent on $5,500,000 for a period of 35 years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The fourth question is: What is the estimated cost of the St. John graving doek alone?


John Dowsley Reid: The company's estimate is $6,402,000; the estimate of the Chief Engineer of Public Works is $5,904,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now I would like answers to the following questions:
5. Is the Government aware that bonds are presently being offered for sale to the public with the following paragraph appearing on the back of each bond:

"The Minister of Public Works of Canada has consented to the issue of the First Series of the within bonds totalling $884,276.50', bearing interest at 54 per cent per annum, of which this bond is one, and has agreed to pay to Montreal Trust Company, Trustee, for the benefit of the holders of the said Bonds the sum of $28,599.43 half-yearly on each of the First days of January and July for a period of thirty-five years hereafter making in all seventy payments as a subsidy payable to St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for work heretofore completed on its Dry Dock at Courtenay Bay, N.B., in respect to which this First Series of Bonds is issued."?
6. Is it true that the subsidy granted to the St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., is sufficient to meet the principal and 'interest on the total issue of bonds, amounting to $3,826,272.34 with interest at 54 per cent?


John Dowsley Reid: These are the answers to the main questions:
5.	The endorsement on Ibomd was approved toy Justice Department and is in accordance with .subsidy under .the Act of Parliament.
6.	A present loan of $3,826,272.34 hearing interest ait 5J per cent per annum, payable _ half-yearly, could be liquidated in thirty-five years by a isemi-annual payment of $123,750; so much off the balance oif the said semi-annual payment as would not be needed for payment of the interest on the outstanding indebtedness being immediately (applied ito reduce the amount of loan outstanding.
I want to add a few further words. The company sent a form of bond to the Public Works Department, with the endorsement and other requirements, as they wanted it issued to the public. It was sent to the Department of Justice and they reported to the Public Works .Department that it was in proper forom and -there was no objection to it. The bond allowed to be issued will only be to the extent that the Government subsidies payable semi-annually, will, .at, the end of .thirty-five years, have paid*o>ff the interest and the principal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In round1 figures what will the total amount he?


John Dowsley Reid: The dry dock will cost in round figures $6,000,000. The Government 'will only allow $3,826,272 of bonds to be issued on which the subsidy will be paid.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That refers to one dry dock. How many dry docks are to be undertaken by the Government under the same subsidy? I see that a dry dock is to be built at Vancouver and another one at Eaquimalt. In this connection a question was put on the Order Paper by my

hon. friend from Guystoorough {Mr. Sinclair) to the following effect:
1.	Has the Government reached a conclusion on the proposal to build a dry dock at or near the city of Victoria, B.C. ?
2.	When will the work be commenced?
3.	What is the estimated cost?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to build this proposed dry dock as a Government work?
To this the following answer was returned :
1.	Yes.	'	-
2.	As soon as conditions will justify.
3.	Between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000.
4.	Yes.
.So;it is apparent that as soon as the conditions will' justify there will be afiother expenditure of between, five and six millions.


John Dowsley Reid: About six millions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When will the construction of that dock be commenced?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not yet called for tenders for that work, but it is intended to do so within a reasonable time. The work will probably toe started within a few months.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that an agreement was also made with Coughlan & Sons to build a dry dock in Vancouver under the provisions of the statutes relating to dry docks. Does the Government intend to build a dry dock in Vancouver under the dry dock at Vancouver. If so, what is the estimated cost of the dock to toe constructed at Vancouver?
Mr. J. D. REI.D: The one at Vancouver is a second-class dry dock and will cost, about $3,500,000. The subsidy allowed on that will be about $2,500,000. In every case the subsidy granted must be paid off in the same way as in the case of the St. John dock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to delay the committee. If it is the settled policy of the Government to build these dry docks I have nothing more to say, hut it seems to me that under present conditions the Government ought to toe a little more prudent. Because this involves a very large expenditure-$5,000,000 or $6,000,000 for the Courtenay Bay works, $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 at Victoria, and right opposite at Vancouver another $3,000,000 or $4,000,000. Does not my hon. friend think that there' is some little exaggeration in this policy of dry dock construction under present cireum-

stances? The financial commitments of tfhe country are very heavy, and it seems to me that the Government ought to pause before embarking on such a wild orgie of expenditure. At first I understand it was agreed that there would be only one dry dock-that at Victoria.


John Dowsley Reid: We are not building
one at Vancouver.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But you have just
promised it.	-


John Dowsley Reid: At Vancouver we are
subsidizing a private dock; we are paying only the interest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
John Dowsley Reid: At this late hour of course, I can only briefly mention one or two points. With reference to the question of the drydock at Esquimalt, the hon. member knows that the building of it was settled in 1912.	He knows

that the item was in the Estimates, that the money was voted, that the site was purchased, and that it was only by reason of the war intervening that, the work did not proceed. Its construction was not undertaken merely on account of that byelection. Now, the reason for subsidizing these docks or engaging in their construction is simply this:	we believe
that there is a great future for traffic on the Pacific Coast, and that what they should have out there is exactly what the hon. member himself advocated in this House, when he supported the construction of two docks, one at the city of Montreal and or.e at the city of Quebec. He believed that it would be in the interests of the country to have drydocks at those points, and he was willing to agree to the necessary expenditure for their construction. The Got&ernment believe the same thing so far as Vancouver and Victoria are concerned. At present many of the larger vessels do not go there because they think they cannot get the necessary d.rydock accommodation. The Government believe that the city of St. John has a great future and that it should have a drydock as well as Halifax or Montreal or Quebec. We believe it is in the interests of the country that these facilities should be provided at the earliest possible day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree that the more
dry docks we have the more we can develop the shipbuilding industry and the iron and steel industry, and the better it is for the country in general, but expenditure for these dry docks should be made at the proper time, not when the country is-I was going to say, facing financial disaster, but I will not say that-not at a time when we have such heavy commitments. It was quite right and proper for the country to vote a subsidy for a floating dry dock at Montreal at a time when the treasury was overflowing with money; at a time when we had surplus after surplus. But in view of the tremendous figure that the national debt has reached I say it is time to call a halt in expenditure of this kind. I am not seeking to antagonize Victoria or Vancouver, or St. John, or any other port; but I do say that the finances of the country will not permit such a large expenditure as this at the present time.


William Stevens Fielding: In one form or another this dry dock question has been before the country for a long time. I suppose there has been some variation of policy in

regard to it, but we have settled down in recent years to a policy of subsidies under the general Act. It is some time since I had occasion to read the general Act, but I know that the Government are empowered to pay certain subsidies for a period of years. My hon. friend has spoken of endorsement. I know that the Act authorizes the payment of subsidies, but does it allow the endorsement of bonds?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not myself read it lately, but my deputy informs me that an amendment to the Act allows endorsement.	,


William Stevens Fielding: That is a novelty to
me. Of course, if the Act authorizes the endorsement of bonds, there is no use in complaining.


John Dowsley Reid: The Government does
not sign an endorsement; it simply consents to the issue. In this case the form of the bond, .the form of agreement, and so on, were sent to the Department of Public Works and then to the Justice Department. The report came from the deputy minister. I looked into the matter when the question was raised by the hon. member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But is there any clause
in the statute which authorizes a minister of the Crown to endorse the bonds in the name of the Dominion Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The bonds are not endorsed.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it,
there is a clause in the Act which authorizes the Minister of Public Works to give his consent to the issue of a certain number of bonds. The Justice Department say that having got the- consent of the Minister of Public Works they have the right to print on the bond a statement that the.,consent has been given.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may be
quite right in saying that the Act authorizes the minister to endorse these bonds.


John Dowsley Reid: No; to give his consent to the issue of the bonds.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: As Acting Minister of
Public Works I. signed the agreement and amy other documents in connection with it that were reported upon and submitted to me by the Department-of Justice as setting out what the parties were entitled to under their contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the name of my
hon. friend appears on the back of each bond, I understand. ,


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. certainly not. I did not sign any bonds; I signed the agreement which the Department of Justice reported upon and submitted for signature.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, so much the better. I am pleased to hear that my hon. friend did not sign om the back of each bond. From the way this circular reads one would believe that each bond was endorsed by the then Acting Minister of Public Works.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In my judgment it is
very much out of place fqr any firm to issue a circular like this; the name of the Dominion of Canada should not serve as an advertisement for any enterprise. The contract is there; the statute is public law, and! it ought to be known by those who subscribe to any of those bonds. I remember some years ago an issue of the bonds of the Baie lies Chaleurs Railway Company was endorsed by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), he at that time being Minister of Finance. The bonds were issued; some of them were sold in London, and after a while, after certain revelations had been made as to the standing of the company and the standing of the gentlemen behind the company, the Government of Canada compelled the then Minister of Finance to withdraw his endorsement, It was advertised in Europe that those 'bonds that had been endorsed by the Hon. Sir George Foster, then Minister of Finance, were not to be considered as having been endorsed, I remember the case very well. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government should not allow any concern to use the name of the Dominion Government to advertise any issue of bond's.


William Stevens Fielding: It is rather difficult to proceed to discuss this matter without having the provisions of the Act before one. I was at one time very familiar with the Act because I had on more than one occasion to attend to revisions of the' Act to meet local conditions. I know the rate was increased, but I have no recollection in my day of any provision as regards actual endorsement, and my opinion is that the word "endorsement" is not the right .word to use. If the arrangement is that you state on the back of the bond exactly what the Act provides, I do not think there is any complaint; but the advertisement which my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) read a moment ago, for which I suppose the minister will say he is not responsible, contains a statement which (I cannot think is in conformity with the Act. It states that the principal and interest of this loan-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are paid by the Government of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think there is any agreement to pay the principal except ' that a sinking fund may he so applied. My recollection is that we simply made an agreement to pay so many dollars per annum, telling the company they could work that odt in any way they liked. If the Act provides for the application of the money in that form, there is no use complaining about the matter. I have no doubt when the Department of Justice are asked to state whether or not this is the form provided by the statute, they will naturally say: "Yes." But as regards the Government doing these things by way of endorse-

ment, I have always regarded 11,1 at as a great mistake.
The ISt. John dry dock is to be built under the terms of the Subsidies Act; the Vancouver dry dock is to be built under the terms of the Subsidies Act. What reason is given for not building the Victoria dry dock under the same Act? Why is Vancouver left at the mercy of a commercial proposition which must have some merit outside of the Government's financing, and why do the Government undertake to build a Government dry dock at Vic-
1 a.m. toria? We have had all sorts of systems of dry dock construction in bygone days; but it seems to me that, having settled down to a policy of subsidizing dry docks under the general Act, it is difficult to give any good reason why we say to Vancouver: "You shall have your subsidy under the Act if you can construct the dry dock in that way," and say as regards Victoria: "We will construct this as a Government dry dock." Why does the Government apply to Victoria a different method from the one they apply to Vancouver?


John Dowsley Reid: The policy as regards
the construction of the dry dock at Victoria was settled some years ago when we purchased' the site. The other dry dock is at Esquimalt where it is- used for naval purposes as well, so that the case is a little different. After the Government had decided on constructing the one d.ry dock on the Pacific coast, a private company came along and they are building a second-class dock, not a first-class dock, at Vancouver, and they asked for a subsidy and it was given. I believe it is in . the interest of the country, to have the two dry docks, one at Vancouver and the other at Victoria, as vessels pass by Victoria.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there not a dry dock further north at Prince Rupert?


John Dowsley Reid: That is several hundred miles away.


William Stevens Fielding: But Victoria and Vancouver are not very many hundred miles apart. What I am afraid' of is this, the Vancouver dry dock had to be taken up as a commercial proposition with some commercial merit, which would induce people to support it, in addition to the Government aid. In the case of Victoria you are not asked to consider any commercial proposition; the Government are to step in and construct the dock at that point. My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) says that this

will be used for naval purposes. Every drydock that is built is to be used for naval purposes. You never had a drydock promoter coming for assistance without setting forth that his drydock was going to serve the British Navy. I am not objecting to the construction of drydocks generally, but I have not seen any reason-except that suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux), which I hope is not well founded-why Victoria was not allowed to get her dry dock on the same basis as St. John got hers. *The dry dock question in St. John is a very old one. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Wigmore), who is at present in the House, , will remember very well that the late Mr. George Robertson, a very eminent citizen of St. John, spent half his life trying to get .a dry dock there. The Government said to him: "You will have to establish a commercial proposition and have your dock built under the Subsidy Act". But they do not do that as regards Victoria. Why is the Government saying to St. John:	"You must do this as a commercial proposition", and to Vancouver: "You must do this as a commercial proposition" ; but when they come to Victoria, and an election is on they say: "Oh, that is a different proposition; we will build the dock for you".


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is
hardly fair when he says that this is an election proposition. There has always been a dry dock at Esqnimalt for naval purposes, and that dock is of no use now on account of the large size of naval vessels. Therefore, this matter was decided in 1912; the dry dock would have been built had it- not been for the war, and to leave our naval vessels at Esquimalt without a dry dock would have been most inadvisable.


William Stevens Fielding: St. John has been
seeking a dry dock for twenty years, but it has .always been met with the answer: "W'e will give you a subsidy; there it is; that is all we can do for you". I should like to have those docks built wherever they are needed and would be of value in the development of the country. But my hon. friend has shown no reason in the world why he would say to St. John:	"There
is the Act; you wilj get the benefit of it", and then say to Victoria:	"Never mind
the Act; we will build the dock for you anyway".
Public Works-chargeable to income-Royal Canadian Mounted Police buildings, $50'0,00'0.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister not think he could dispense with this

building at Ottawa. There seems to be a pretty strong sentiment throughout the Dominion that this is not the right place to have the headquarters of the A%>unted Police, and that it is a mistake to' build barracks costing half a million dollars for the Mounted Police in Ottawa. Will the minister say whether he thinks this item should stand?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I explained when the
matter came up on my Estimates that this includes not only the buildings here, but the completion of the building at Vancouver. The buildings at Vancouver will cost approximately ?100,000, and the buildings at Ottawa, in round figures, $400,000.-If we can secure other suitable accommodation here we shall not proceed with the building this year, but it may be that we cannot. Therefore, the item should appear in the estimates. I cannot agree with my hon. friend that this is not a suitable place *for the headquarters of the Mounted Police. It is the headquarters of the military forces, and is the chief administrative centre of the . country for all purposes. I therefore think it is a suitable place. -


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just been looking al the statute and I want to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. The Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910, 7-8 George V, Chap. 27, section 3, provides:
No bonds, debentures, or other securities, shall be issued with respect to and as a charge upon any dock until it has been- established to the satisfaction of the minister that not less than one million dollars have been spent on the work and the material upon or for such dock.
Has it been established in the case of the St. John dry dock and the Vancouver dry dock that the amount of $1,000,000 has been expended?


John Dowsley Reid: It has been established that $1,600,000 has been expended on the St. John dry dock. As for the Vancouver dry dock, the agreement, if I remember right, has not yet been signed, so of course no bonds can have been issued in that case, and no bonds will be issued until the pres

cribed amount has been expended.


Mr. WIGMORE:: It was not my intention to take up the time of the committee tonight in connection with the St. John dry dock, but I feel I must say a word or two. I have in my possession here a copy of the agreement. There is nothing wrong. This company simply took advantage of the Act that was passed by this House. As the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's said, the people of St. John had been urging the
construction of this work in St. John for a number of years. They have gone on with the work of the harbour construction themselves. They have expended an amount on the harbour of St. John that no other city and no other port in the Dominion has expended. Every cent of money that has been expended in every other port of the Dominion of Canada has been expended by the Dominion Government, but the people of St. John had enough faith in the development and -the future of their port to dig down in their own pockets to the tune of about $3,000,000. I resent very strongly the statements made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) on two occasions in this House when criticising* the expenditure of money by this Government on the harbour of St. John. He said on one occasion that it was putting money down a sink hole, that a lot of money had been dumped in the Bay of Fundy. So far as I know, there has been no money expended by this Government in the Bay of Fundy for any purpose except the establishment of buoys and aids to navigation. From the 26th of February, when the House met this year, until to-day I have not missed a sitting except for two weeks recently when I was home sick. I have urged on the Government the absolute necessity of spending a certain amount of money for the extension of the breakwater at St. John. That expenditure is absolutely necessary in order to protect the harbour of St. John.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that at Courtenay Bay?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No, that is another part altogether. I have urged upon the Govern-merlt the wisdom of making this expenditure. They have seen the necessity for it, and sent down their engineers to make surveys; plans and specifications have been drawn, and tenders were ready to be called for. I was therefore very much surprised recently to find no provision in the Estimates for this extension. In 1917 the Government saw the necessity of making an extension to this breakwater and tenders were called for it that year, but on account of war conditions the project was abandoned. I believe it is one of the most necessary works in the whole Dominion. When you consider that St. John on account of its geographical position,-and I say this advisedly-is the only winter freight port in the Dominion, when you consider its short rail haul, and the growth of St. John, that its exports increased from less than $7,000,000 in 1900 to $200,000,000 last year, and that during the last winter season for twelve days from

eight to twelve steamers were lying in the stream waiting for a berth, and that the Dominion Government are sipending millions of dollars on their merchant marine, it is no wonder that the people of St. John have faith in the future of their city.
How are we going to accommodate the trade that is going to come to our ports unless we provide' 'facilities? We are spending millions every year on our railways but we are not developing the ports of Canada as they should be developed. Millions are being expended every year in the harbour of Quebec and in the harbour of Montreal; millions are being expended in dredging the St. Lawrence, and millions more will have to be expended every year if the harbour and river are going to take care of the coming traffic. But no provision has been made for winter traffic. The people of St. John have shown their faith in the future by spending their own money, but they cannot go any further. Parliament last year passed an Act enabling the citizens of St. John to place the harbour of St. John under commission. It is necessary to take a plebiscite on that question, and I expect it will be taken in the very near future. I would urge upon the Government to-night as a last resort and especially on the Minister of Public Worlds, to provide an item of $300,000 in the estimates this year so that at least a start can be made on the breakwater extention.
There is one thing moire, I will point out. The St. John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company have a contract from the Government for the construction of a dry dock in order to take their dredge material out. The Government are paying to them the amount of three cents a yard for a distance of over two and a half miles, or a sum of $90,000. If this breakwater were extended to-day, the dump for this dredge material from Courtenay Bay would then be within the two and a half miles limit, and the Government would save on that transaction alone $90,000, which would help tj pay the interest on the construction of the dry dock. The reason I am urging this on the Government at this time is not because it would be of benefit to the City of St. John, but because it is a national work that would be of benefit to the whole Dominion. I would urge that an item for $300,000 at least be passed at this session so that ctn tracts may be called for and the work started at once. Not more than that amount could be spent

during the balance of this year. I would ask tire Minister of Public Works to kindly consider this matter and see that the required amount is placed in the Supplementary Estimates. I had the assurance that this amount would be placed in the Supplementary Estimates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend's word is of course without any question to be accepted. He knows the conditions better than I do. I accept my hon. friend's word about the possibilities of St. John Harbour. But there are some papers published in New Brunswick which are supposed to be informed on conditions in New Brunswick. I read one the other day, the Daily Gleaner, published in the city of Fredericton by James H. Crocket. I think he is a brother of the gentleman of that name who was a member of this House some years ago and who belonged to the same party as my hon. friend. I read in this paper under date of J une 17:
If St. John is satisfied with the Courtney Bay exploitation, it need not expect to have the support or countenance of the other sections of the province, who have some' respect for the fitness of things. St. John West has been practically beggared in harbour facilities because of reckless waste of public moneys on the east side. The difficulties of to-day are of its own making. The west side has a practical scheme, but naturally the public men of Canada of either party, and of all political parties are disposed to dump the revenue of the whole country into the harbours of one town.
When I used the expression "sinking money" I used it in company \fith a good New Brunswicker, Mr. Crocket, who uses an expression much stronger than mine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did I understand my hon. friend to state that part of this item was for a Royal Canadian Mounted Police building .at Vancouver and part for a barracks at Ottawa?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much of it is to be expended at Ottawa?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount is $400,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that the item be reduced by $400,000. I think it is folly to build a barracks for the Mounted Police at Ottawa at the present time. I cannot understand why the Government should be increasing the Mounted Police, bringing the force East and entering into the construction of these barracks when the tendency should be in the other direction. I move that the item be reduced by $400,000.


Jacques Bureau: Why bring the Northwest Mounted Police to Ottawa? Their very name indicates what their duties aTe. They are a mounted police force whose duty it is to patrol the country where settlement is so sparse that it requires this extra protection. The Mounted Police stand as a corps by themselves. We have always been proud of them, they have done honour to Canada but I do not see why we should maintain the Mounted Police in the East where they are not needed and where the provinces have all the necessary equipment to see that the laws are observed. I do not believe we are improving the corps by keeping them in Ottawa where they can do nothing to serve the purpose for which they were created. The men of the force themselves do not like it. They feel that they are not being treated justly by being brought down here, standing and parading around Ottawa when they could be usefully employed in the West.
Amendment negatived; years 16, nays 19.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to offer a suggestion. I appreciate the difficulty of the Government in dealing with this police question. At the time the Northwest Territories were organized into provinces the need for the police seejned to have disappeared and the Government apparently for that reason brought them East. I agree that they are not fitted for eastern work and I do not think they like it. But in any case it seems to me that they ought to be employed somewhere usefully. My suggestion would be that the Government open negotiations with the western provinces and see if some arrangement cannot be made whereby this very valuable force shall be still employed in the West, the Dominion paying a share-and a liberal share-of the expenditure. I feel so much pride in the record of that splendid body of men that I do not want to see the force destroyed and I would be willing to pay some money to prevent that result. I do not think the Government can go on keeping them in the East and I would hope that the minister would be able to make some arrangement with the western provincial governments to share the expense. If the provinces will not take the force it had better be disbanded altogether but I would not like to see that happen and I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Joseph Archambault: Is the Mr. Loggie my hon. friend is referring to the hon. member for Northumberland?


Mr. LEGER:: No, it is not. The member
for Northumberland is W. S. Loggie, to whom I will refer later on. 1 was a little surprised that Robichaud did not get the contract, and it is still a mystery to me why he did not. Now, Mr. Chairman, you will note that the hon. minister did not mention in hi.s letter that this line was to end at the mouth of the river. He always said it was to go to Kouchibouguac. That is the only place where the business of that district is dope. The post office bears the name of Kouchibouguac.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Hon. gentleman will have to learn that name. Many of them I expect cannot write it or spell it, but if they will come to me I shall be happy to do it for them. Now, the minister never mentioned that this line was going to end at mouth of the river, he always said Kouchibouguac, and I believed at the time that he intended to connect with that telephone line. On my return home last July after the end of the session I was informed that the line was built from Pointe Sapin, not to Kouchibouguac, as was expected, but
to the mouth of the river, direct to the W. S. Loggie Lobster Canning Factory-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I am sorry that I have to mention the name of an hon. member, but I cannot do anything else in the matter.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member for Northumberland?


Auguste Théophile Léger: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend from Northumberland, Mr. Loggie-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Auguste Théophile Léger: -has a lobster canning factory at Pointe Sapin, and another factory at the mouth of the Kouchibouguac river, and this line of telephone connects the two factories, and there is no other office along the new line; it does not accommodate anyone else. I will read to the House an extract from a letter which will corroborate what I have just said. The writer states:
-beg: to say that the Government telephone (so called) ends at W. S. Loggie's factory and as far as I know is not in any other place on the route. It is nothing more than a private line for W. S. Loggie-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Ottawa, April 21st, 1920.
1 ior.ourablo J. 0. Reid,
. Acting Mmiisteir of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Honourable amidi 0eair Sir,-I have a.n ap-pl'ica-bion, from oinie Mr. Charles Wiillliaimis, of Kou-ch'iUnmguiac, iin the County of Kent, N.B., for am extension of thie telephone Mme from the lime now tai'jreaidy buiilt by the Government, from Pointe Sapin to the Loggie Company Lobster Oainmimig Factory, ait the mouth of the Kouchl-bouguaic river, to the Kouchibouiguac village, a distance of about three males, which extension of line would accommodate a great many people in that district, and also all the people of Pointe Sapin.
Mr. Williams offers to give all the assistance possible by procuring some material for said line, which application 1 would task for your most earnest consideration.
An early reply would oblige,
Yours truly.
I will not charge hon. gentleman who was then Acting Minister of 'Public Works with any deliberate delay; my letter must have miscarried in some way, because I have always found the minister to be very prompt in replying to correspondence. >So you will see, Mr. Chairman, that this telephone line was built for the sole purpose olf accommodating my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) at the public expense, and no one else. I am sorry that I have to make such a declaration, bht T feel that it is my duty to do so. When the people's money is expended for such a purpose the country should know about it, and I wish also to show to the country that I have been no party to the deal. The Government must take full responsibility for the whole matter. 1 have asked the Government on different occasions for small grants for river dredging, repairing of wharfs, the buoying of channels, accommodation to fishermen and farmers and the handling of mud fertilizer for their land, but the Government has not responded by meeting the needs of the people. I may say right here that I am informed by a reliable source that it has been reported by the Government inspector for the Chatham district that dredging will be carried on this summer at or near the Loggie lobster factory at the mouth of the Kouchibouguac river,-which would accommodate my hon. friend from Northumberland. But, Sir, the Government seem to have plenty money with which to build telephone lines for private concerns. As I have said, not a word was mentioned in letters received from the minister of his. intention to end that telephone line at the Loggie factory at the mouth of the river. Now we understand why the whole matter

was not made public before; and this is a couise which I condemn. If the Government had built a line to Kouchibouguac and then a short line to the W. S. Loggie Company's canning factory it would not be so had, but no; they give this private company full accommodation and the general public none. I therefore want some explanation from the Government why this line was built for a private concern, at a cost to the country of thousands of dollars. Why should this line have been built for a rich concern at the expense of the poor people of the country? I would like to know what was the cost of putting up this telephone line. The amount does not appear in the public accounts. I make this matter public because the people of my county are not satisfied with regard to it. The needs set forth by the letter from Mr. Williams, which I read a few moments ago, have met with no response, and I hope that the .Government will give some attention to this matter and state why this work was done at the expense of the public to assist a private concern.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I want to say first of all that I do not own any lobster factory in Kouchibouguac district. There is nothing in. the construction of that line that I know of that is not perfectly regular. Kouchibouguac village has a public telephone and has had such for many years. The district at the mouth of the river that connects with Pointe Sapin did not have any telephones and .as it is a very important part of Kent county 2 a.m. as regards the shipping of fresh fish, it was in the public interest that telephone connection should be had with the other portion of the Government line, namely, Escuminac point. There has been a telegraph line between Chatham and Escuminac point for the last thirty or forty years. Recently it has been changed to a telephone line, and it was that line that was connected up with Chatham.
To provide for the purchase of the LotbiniSre and the Megantic Railway under authority of Chapter 22, Statutes of Canada, 1916, together with interest at 5 per cent from 1st, April, 1920, $336,875.


Georges Parent: Has this amount been
paid to the Tailway company?


John Dowsley Reid: We could not possibly pay it until the money is voted.


William Stevens Fielding: Would the minister give us some particulars as to how this sum was reached?


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy will be here in a few moments. We can let this item stand and come back to it later.
Item stands.	[DOT]
Canadian Government Railways-To provide for payment of expenses in connection with acquisition of the Grand Trunk and associated railway systems-additional amount required, $400,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When is the
arbitration likely to proceed?


John Dowsley Reid: The officials are getting all the evidence together. They have been at work for.some time. The arbitrators will be appointed within a few days.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not until Parliament has prorogued.


John Dowsley Reid: That has nothing to do with it.
Loan to Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, not exceeding $25,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I beg to move to amend this item by adding after the word "made" in the eighteenth line the wordte "foT any of the foregoing purposes". The officials tell me that this will make the purpose of the item more clear.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did the minister leave this item of $25,000,000 to the very last moment? Why was it not brought down in the Main Estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: We have had auditors at. work investigating the Grand Trunk's books to find' out just what the situation was, and what money would1 be required. We could not proceed until the Bill was passed.
Public Works-Generally-Barracks for Permanent Force, $100,006.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is another extravagance. What is this for?


John Dowsley Reid: The amount is towards the construction of barracks for the Permanent Force. The Department of Militia and Defence in a letter dated July 19, requested that barracks be providted as follows: "Military District No. 2, construction of a two-barrack building at Toronto for two squadrons."' Then follows a comprehensive scheme for barracks at a total cost of $2,202,500. We are not proceeding with all of that, but are just asking for $100,000 at the present' time. That goes to show that they have cut the Estimate down from $2,202,500 to $100,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It also goes to show that the criticism of the leader of the Opposition has had some effect. The Minister of Militia announced in committee the other day that the Government intended to bring down a Supplementary Estimate for $2,202,500, but now they are asking lor $100,000. I congratulate the Government on having come to its senses in reducing this item by over $2,000,000, and I would congratulate them still further if they would cut the item out altogether..
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia, $54,185.


Mr. SPINNEY:: I wish to call the minister's attention to a petition that has been forwarded by the residents of Port Maitland and surrounding district asking for the construction of a breakwater there, which is essential in the prosecution of their fishing. I do not wish to take up time at this late hour in going more fully into the requirements but I would urge that this petition be favourably considered by the Public Works Department. The resident engineer endorsed the action of the residents of that place in making an effort to procure this assistance in order that they may be able to carry on their industry and bring it to its fullest development. I would like to hear some expression from the minister in regard to the carrying out of the work required at that place.


John Dowsley Reid: We had a petition from the residents of the locality for a new breakwater at Port Maitland. We have one there now but it is not suitable. Owing to heavy expenditures we have decided that we would ask the people to wait for another year for a new breakwater. We are repairing the old one during the present year. The department intend looking into the whole matter and getting an estimate with a view to taking the matter up at the next session of the House.
Lighthouse and coast service-to provide a further amount to pay Government pension to pilot Joseph Eugene Lachance, $300.


Georges Parent: What is the policy of the Government with regard to the payment of pensions to pilots? I understand that a pilot at the age of sixty-five is bound to get out of the service and that he then receives a pension. Has that' policy been followed by the Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Quebec pilotage district is the only one in Canada where pilots get any pension whatsoever. It is an old arrangement that was entered into when Mr. Brodeu: was Minister of Marine.


Georges Parent: I am aware that in certain cases the- department has decided that at the age of sixty-five pilots have to get out of the service, and that in some instances it has given pensions to men of sixty-nine and seventy years of age. I would like to know if there is any definite policy or whether the department can put a man on pension at any age?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The age at which a man is supposed to be pensioned is sixty-five.
Mr. MACKiElNZIE KING: The hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I., (Mr. Sinclair) asked me when this item came up if I would request the minister to be kind enough to send him a copy of all petitions, correspondence, telegrams and recommendations by the officials of the Government or any other persons with regard to the building of a lighthouse at Little Sands, P.E.I., this year. He also asks that the minister shalLsend him the name and salary of the lighthouse keeper at Little Sands, P.E.I., the date of his appointment, the names of other applicants for the position and the name or names of persons recommending the appointment of the present incumbent.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, I will be very glad to see that this information is immediately sent.
Purchasing Commission-salaries and contingencies, $90,0W.


Joseph Archambault: What is that Purchasing Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: There is the Purchasing Commission. Sir Hormisdas Laporte is chairman and there are itlwo or three members Of the commission.


Joseph Archambault: Is it a Purchasing Commission for all the departments?
Mr. J. D. RE'ID: lit is a Purchasing Commission to purchase for all the departments. It iwas organized during the war. Originally Sir Edward Kemp was chairman and there were also on the board Mr. Gault, and iSir Hormisdas Laporte. Now 'Sir Edward Kemp and Mr. Gault have ceased to be members and there are two other gentlemen in their places.


Joseph Archambault: This is a War Purchasing Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: It was the War Purchasing Commission. We do not call it that now, hut simply the Purchasing Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government introduced a Bill to provide for a Purchasing Commission and the Prime Minister said that he never felt that a Bill was (more necessary than this one. Could the hon. gentleman inform us why they did not proceed with the Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: Hon. gentlemen opposite gave us so much opposition, we did not want to keep the session any longer and we are going to work with the present commission until next session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This commission hais no authority under any. Act of this Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: The commission can go on 'by Order in Council and do the same work that it has Ibeen doing in .the past. Every expenditure made goes through this commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ils it not time to get back to the position where commissions twill proceed under Act of Parliament instead otf by Order in Council? When the Government found it necessary .to withdraw the Bill and not proceed with it they ought to stop paying out fuither money for commissions under the authority of an Order in Council.


John Dowsley Reid: The commission has so far worked well and proved a success. The matter twill be taken up again next session. No harm iwiM be done in the meantime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But $90,000 will be spent.


John Dowsley Reid: Even under the Bill we would have spent that money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite apparent that the Bill would have never passed this Parliament and- the -Government ought to take note of the attitude of Parliament towards a measure otf this kind. It was perfectly obvious that horn, gentlemen on the Government side were just as strongly opposed to the Purchasing Commission as hon. gentlemen on this side. It was made apparent that Parliament was against this .policy, so -much iso that the Government did not dare to proceed with the legislation, lit is therefore going 'beyond the bounds of decency for the -Government to propose to perpetuate this'commission by Order in Council. I protest strongly against any further expenditure under Order in Council for any Purchasing Commission. If the Government wishes to have a Purchasing Commission let it get authority from

Parliament. If it cannot get that authority it should 'stop proceeding under OrdeT in Council.* I take very strong exception to expending 'a single five cent piece for the perpetuation of this body.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Bill seeking to accomplish this purpose has been before the House for three sessions and at none of ' them has it made any progress. Despite that fact the Government persists in retaining the services of these gentlemen, who act as if they were a department of the Government although they have no Parliamentary authority for doing so. This is playing fast and loose with the traditions of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly it is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the highest regard for (Sir Hormisdas Laporte but he, like the rest of us, is bound by the authority of Parliament. Parliament refuses to grant that authority, and the sentiment is pretty general on both sides of the House that whilst this commission, during the war, was in a position to render some service to the State, now that the war is over and normal conditions prevail it has ceased to be of any use. I am therefore surprised to find an item in the Estimates for the purpose of perpetuating the commission. I was not here when this question came up during the present session but I was present when it was discussed last session and the session before. The President of the Privy Council (iMr. Rowell) fathered the Bill and seemed most anxious to have it passed; but he found that the opposition on the Government side was, if anythin", more strenuous than on this side. When the President of the Privy Council saw that the Bill was attacked from the right and from the left, from the north and from the south, he allowed it to drop. Nevertheless he is so accustomed to ignore the authority of Paraliament that he has inserted an item in the Estimates in order to continue this body in existence. I want to know from the minister how many officers are employed'by the commission and what are its functions? How does the commission operate now that the war is over? Where are the offices of the commission, how much do we pay for those offices, what staff is employed by the commission and to whom do they report their activities? We are entitled to know theee facts. Are we to vote a large sum of money every session to this commission without having any report of its operations? That 291J
is simply flaunting the authority of Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: I could not, just at the moment, give the hon. member a list of the officers and staff connected with the commission but their names appear every year in the report of the Auditor General, so they can be easily procured. They are practically the same from year to year, although a few changes may take place from time to time' as some officials resign and others take their place. The work of the commission has been many times explained; T think the hon. member himself was present when the Prime Minister spoke very strongly of the wmrk of the commission and explained its operations in detail.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He spoke for the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: No, when the resolution was up, and explained the operations of the commission. In a word, the commission operates in this way: All the departments must make their requisitions for supplies to the commission which calls for tenders and purchases the needed supplies independently of any department. The sum in the Estimates is for the carrying on of the commission's work. If the amount for salaries and other purposes is not required, it will not be expended. The Prime Minister in his explanation expressed the view -and that is the view of the Government- that the commission effected a very great saving during the war and is still continuing to' do good work. It is true there was opposition on both sides of the House when the resolution was introduced, but the Government feel they could not cut it off without having a little time to see whether the good work that the commission has done in the past, and is still doing, should not be continued. Under the circumstances I would ask that the item stand as it is and let the matter come up again at the next sitting and be fully discussed. "


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no doubt that
during the war the commission rendered valuable service. The work it performed was in connection with war contracts and every such contract was submitted to its judgment. But the war is long since over; and the Government must have found there was no necessity of maintaining such a war excrescence. Are we going to ignore the authority of Parliament to the extent proposed? Parliament has refused, and rightly refused, to create such a department. The Government wanted not only to create a new department but to place a minister

in charge and have the commission under his authority. Both parties in Parliament considered it was an unnecessary expenditure now that the war is over. In spite of the expressions of opinion that came from both sides the Government now proposes by a round about way to perpetuate the commission which it was the desire of Parliament to abolish. I do not see how we can possibly do that.


Joseph Archambault: May I ask the
minister when the name of this body was changed? If I understand correctly the commission was created by Order in Council during the war and in that Order in Council the title of "War Purchasing Commission " was applied. Now we find in the Estimates an item of $90,000, not for the " War Purchasing Commission " but simply for the " Purchasing Commission." I ask the minister if the old War Purchasing Commission has been abolished and a new one created?


John Dowsley Reid: The Order in Council appointing the War Purchasing Commission is the authority under which it is now operating. The omission of the word "War" in the Estimates does not affect the commission or its powers. There is no doubt at all that the commission did excellent work during the war and in the opinion of the Government is still continuing to do so.


Joseph Archambault: But the opinion
of Parliament is against it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member may think that the proposal would not have carried in the House. My opinion is that it would have. However we were busy with other matters and did not press it. No harm can result from the commission continuing as it is until next session. If the Government had been of the opinion that the non-passage of the Bill would have abolished the commission, it would have put that Bill through. At least it would have submitted it to the House and I am satisfied it would have passed.


Joseph Archambault: Was it not
specially provided that this commission was only to be in operation during the war?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Joseph Archambault: Not created only for the war?


John Dowsley Reid: No. '


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon. friend sure of that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was created only for the war, because when the Bill was intro-

duced it was stated by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and especially by the President af the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), that the work of that commission had been so efficient during the war that it. should be maintained now as a department of the Government. We objected to that because we said that while during the war there were so many very large contracts that it required the special attention of men of their ability and experience to see if this or that contract should be awarded, for normal conditions there was an officer in each department who looked after the purchases of his department. I instanced the Post Office Department, the Public Works Department-in fact every department, and I said it wag simply surplusage of employees and spending money uselessly to appoint a purchasing commission; and the opposition was so strong from both sides of the House that the Bill was dropped in three different sessions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there is a misapprehension on the part of hon. gentlemen who are criticising this item. It is true that t'he War Purchasing -Commission was created by an Order in Council and had in view of special conditions in connection with war purchasing. It is likewise true that a Bill was introduced to constitute a statutory body, to -be known as a Purchasing Commission. It is: also 'true that that Bill has not been passed. But the purchasing of supplies for the public service is part of the function of the Government. There is no statutory provision, for instance, for a purchasing agent in each department; he is not created by statute. There is no statutory provision determining through what agencies t'he purchasing of the Government shall be carried on, and how it shall be supervised. Though there be no such statute, Parliament has voted, together with other salaries, the salaries of the agents departmentally employed to attend to the purchasing. The Government required no statutory authorization 'for that purpose; and if the Government should in its judgment deem it wise that the whole of the purchasing should be generally supervised, it requires no statutory authorization to provide officers to attend to that supervision. The Government does require to come to this House to have voted the salaries and the expenses of those officers, just as they require to have voted the salaries and expenses of any other officers who, in its judgment, it may consider useful for carrying on that part of its busi-

ness winch consists in purchasing those things required to be purchased for the public services. It is purely a matter of adr ministration how you will carry on the purchasing.
An 'hon. MEMBER: Do not obstruct your own Estimates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was thought that it might be dfesirable to create a body to whom special statutory powers would be given to control the purchasing. That plan, for the time being at all events, is not being proceeded with. But that does not withdraw ifrom the Government its responsibility for the purchasing of supplies and its right therefore to take such methods as may seem in its judgment wisest to secure that that purchasing may be most prudently done.
Now, this House is asked to vote the necessary money for a body that shall see that the purchasing operations of all of the departments are so made to fit in with each other as to rebound to the greatest public advantage. It is for the expenses necessary to provide that additional protection and precaution that this House is now asked to pass this vote. It is. just as simple as that. This House is not asked for a dollar for any statutory body-for the body which it was in contemplation to create by the bill that was presented to this House.


Jacques Bureau: I think the reasoning of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is absolutely false. This commission was created as a war measure. My hon. friend says that the Government is responsible for the commissions it creates. We have had a very good example of what commissions will do and how the Government will shoulder its responsibility. In anticipation of a report on the classification we were called upon to vote moneys over which .Parliament has absolute control, and we are told that the Civil Service Commission was to make that report which would be deposited on the table of the House. It was not deposited, but still we had to vote the money. The proof of the fact that the War Purchasing Commission was a matter of administration is the circumstance that for three successive sessions we have had on the Order Paper a resolution to create, not a war purchasing commission but a purchasing commission. If it is a matter absolutely in the jurisdiction of the .Government, why do they come to Parliament for authority?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because it was proposed to create what would be a statutory body. We do not pretend that this purchasing commission to perform the functions that
are indicated is going to be endowed with any statutory powers.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) did.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not have the advantage of being in the House when the Minister of Railways stated his understanding of the position, and I am not called upon to discuss what he said. It has been necessary for me to look into the question of whether the body that we have in mind to employ for the purpose I have pointed out, could be lawfully employed by the Government in the performance of that administrative duty of making purchases. If having fallen to me to look into it I reached the conclusion-and I may say that that view is shared by the law officers of the Crown^-that it is quite within the general powers of the Government to take every reasonable precaution to see that the purchasing is properly carried out. The purchasing commission which will carry on. in virtue of this vote will not be a body with any statutory powers; it will be in the same position as any other employees who1 might be charged by the Government with the performance of certain duties at a certain remuneration, and for the expenses of whose operations it is natural and proper that the Government should provide.


Jacques Bureau: 
Mr FIELDING:: Surely somebody will
give us .an explanation of this rather unu-isual item.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: When the soldiers came hack, 12,000 more returned men located in British Columbia than went away from that province. During 1919 a contract was completed at Victoria for the construction of twenty ships for the French Government. Accordingly a large number of men were released from employment; about 5,000 men, 4,000 of whom were returned .soldiers, were out of employment in Victoria city alone. A proposal came from some Victorians that the Government advance $700,000 for the construction of four ships, lumber carriers ' of the brigantine type, on condition that the company put up $75,000 on each .ship. The money' was to be loaned at the rate of six per cent. The proposal was brought to Ottawa in December, and after very careful consideration,, and having particular regard to the fact that there were a large number of unemployed soldiers in that district, it was decided to make the loan. As I have said, the ships are now under construction and it is agreed that at least 250 men will be given employment on each ship. As you are all aware, there is a very great demand for lumber carriers out there, and the freight rate is high-.around $54 a thousand feet, I believe. In 1915 out of fifty-two cargoes of lumber that left the Pacific coast for British ports only two were loaded on the Canadian side, simply because the Americans controlled all the available bottoms. I think, therefore,. that these lumber carriers will pay their way very well, and at present the reestablishment of a large number of returned soldiers is being assisted by their construction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On what date did the Government decide upon this loan?
iSir HENRY DRAYTON: The. contract was arranged under Order in Counci,-a copy of which I shall be pleased to table, if my hon. friend so desires-passed on the 24th of December, 1919. That was the time when unemployment was, perhaps, at its peak, and when there was a great deal of apprehension with regard to conditions in that part of the country. The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) says that this is an extraordinary item. Well, it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the date of the by-election in Vancouver?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: October 27th.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think that the election had anything bo do with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were any
promises made at election time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There were a
great many hungry people out there and a great many people out of work. It was an extraordinary act, but an extraordinary situation was. being dealt with. The contract was charged against the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919, which provided that the money appropriated under it might be used), among other things, for the promotion of trade, industry and transportation facilities, and for the carrying out of any .measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of war. The non-employment of these returned soldiers was certainly one of the results of the war, and certainly the adoption of this course tended to promote trade and industry.
M,r. TOLMIE: Two or three suggestions have been made from the other side tonight which I have been rather sorry to hear. They have been strong hints to the effect that I was elected by some means that were not exactly straight. I want to say that I have lived in that country; I am known out there, and I think I have a very fair reputation, even if I say so myself. I want to say quite clearly that I am not here because I cannot be anywhere else. I am not her-e to make a living. Any time I cannot come here without doing something that is not straight I will stay on the Pacific coast.
Mr. (MACKENZIE KING:	The minister
must not take any comments too much to heart; every one has implicit faith in his integrity. But the minister surely knows some of his colleagues well enough to understand that they have an appreciation of elections and their significance which, perhaps, he in his innocence has not gained as yet.
Demobilization-Department of Public Works -completion of construction, rents, etc., $1,250,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item, I
notice, comes under the head of "Demobilization."


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it is in connection with military buildings, military hospitals, soldiers'' civil re-establishment hospitals, and so on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have already voted sums for soldier settlement, hospital's, and so on; why do the items which the minister has mentioned come under this particular heading?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say why.
The amount is to settle [DOT] up contracts for buildings that have been under construction; it is not for new buildings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To include
expenses for construction in the demobilization vote would seem to be a contradiction of terms.
Public Works chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-British Columbia-Sunnyside-restoration of float, $3,000.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) asked me a few moments ago how we arrived at the valuation of the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway. I have now the Act before me. The hon. member will remember that in that Act we agreed to take over three railways, and the Act stated that the value as determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada was to be :
The actual cost of said railway less subsidies and less depreciation, but not to exceed $4,349,000, exclusive of outstanding bonded indebtedness, which is to be assumed by the Government, but not to exceed in all $2,500,000.
The way that was made up was this. We were to take over the Quebec and Saguenay, that is, after the judgment of the Exchequer Court had been given, at the maximum value of $4,019,000, the Lotbiniere and Mag-antic at $330,000, and then the bonds amounting to $2,500,000 represented the Quebec and Montmorency railway. We did not take over the Quebec and Montmorency railway, that is, the electric railway, and therefore, t*hat cancelled the $2,500,000. We took over the Quebec and Saguenay and settled that. That left the Lotbiniere and Megantic, and the price we had fixed for that at the time was $330,000, which is the actual cost to the parties. There were no subsidies granted by the Dominion Government to that railway.
Mr.' FIELDING:	My question related
entirely to the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway. The minister says that $330,000 was the actual cost. Was that fixed by the Exchequer Court?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it was only by our officials.


William Stevens Fielding: Then there has been
no judgment by the Exchequer Court. The minister ought to be able to give us some testimony that this road is worth that
money. My information is that it is not worth the money, and that an excessive price has been paid. I should like the minister to give us some information as to this company. Who are the directors, shareholders and officers of the company?


John Dowsley Reid: We sent out Intercolonial engineers and staff over the work and had them make a valuation.


William Stevens Fielding: Has the minister any
report of that?


John Dowsley Reid: I presume we have a
report in the department. I know the officials were ordered to go over the road and check up the valuation. The money, however, has not been paid yet, and as the hon. member has drawn my attention to the matter, I will see that there is a report as to the valuation before the money is expended.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the minister
know who are the gentlemen chiefly connected with this enterprise?


John Dowsley Reid: The Quebec Light,
Heat and Power Company owned the three railways.	.


William Stevens Fielding: If the information that has reached me is reliable, the minister is paying an extravagant price for the road, and he ought to look well into the values of the road and also into the history of recent transactions in connection with it. When the Government aTe taking over a property, they might well look into the question of who were the former owners and what price they1 sold it for.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do that. Resolution reported


FISH INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of the Naval Service), for the House to go into committee on Bill No. 50, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
pretty late hour in the day's sitting to bring up further business.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This Bill was before the House some weeks ago and was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries. The Government are anxious to get the Bill through, and the committee have reported favourably on it. It is merely a Bill providing for compulsory inspection of fish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were the committee unanimous on the Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: I have a rather divided opinion about this Bill. As I remarked at an earlier stage, I know the object of this Bill is a good one in providing inspection, especially in relation to our foreign trade. I have some doubt whether the Bill is satisfactory to the fishermen generally, and that is also a matter of divided opinion. I know that the Bill -was the sfibject of very keen discussion in the committee on Marine and Fisheries at the session of which I was not present; considerable feeling was manifested concerning it, and I think the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was its principal antagonist. He has gone away, I believe, under the impression that the matter was laid aside, and I am rather sorry if we have to have a division on this now. Although I recognize the object of the. Bill is a good one, I think we need some more education amongst our fishermen before they will be prepared to accept it. If the minister wishes to press the matter to-night, I can only press my objection to it on that ground.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-inspection of fish:
Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad to bear in mind what my hon. friend says. Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply-
William Stevens Fielding: Is the Minister going
to go on with concurrence at this hour of the morning?


John Dowsley Reid: It will only take five
minutes.


William Stevens Fielding: Concurrence takes a
good deal more than five minutes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think we have done
a good day's work. Let us adjourn.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Gentlemen should not
be weary in well doing.


William Stevens Fielding: If the minister wants
to go on he -can, but I am bound to say that a scandal which has too often occurred -there was a good deal of discussion yesterday about scandal-if there is a scandal in connection with our Parliamentary affairs it is the manner in which during the lost few hours of a session a great amount of important public business is rushed through the House and millions of dollars are voted. We ought not to be kept here at his hour doing this business. It is not fair to the House- or country. There is only a handful of members present and we might have counted out the House two or three times during the evening. There is no particular reason why the House should prorogue to-day, or to-morrow, or this week. We may be anxious to bring the business to a close, but our first business is to attend to business in an orderly and business like way. When the proceedings of the last few days go_ out to the people of Canada they will think that though we -are getting more indemnity we are not earning it by attending to our business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This seems
an opportune moment for me to say a few words following the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, protesting against this bringing down of Estimates at the last moment and leaving the discussion of them to the very last hours of the session. This year -we twice met the Government in the matter of agreeing to votes on account of the Estimates. If by any accident the Government should be in office next year, I would like them to understand that, so' far -as the Opposition is concerned, if we are here as an Opposition, we will refuse absolutely to give any votes on account. The Government must be prepared to have its -business ready for Parliament to consider early in the -session.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton, the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $15,875,999.03 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921, the sum of $321,980,760.61 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 221 for granting to His. Majesty .certain sums of money for the puiblic service for the fiscal years ending respectively March 31st, 1920, and March 31st, 1921.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed!
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 3.35 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, July 1, 1920.